Life on the Margins:
Survey Results of the Experiences of LGBTI People in
Southeastern Europe
September 2018
Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................. 1
Key findings ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Variations across countries ............................................................................................................. 2
Variations across subgroups ........................................................................................................... 3
Way forward ................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Sample and survey demographics............................................................................................ 8
1.2 Legal Context........................................................................................................................... 10
2. Daily Life for LGBTI People in Southeastern Europe ..................................................................... 13
2.1 Openness about sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics ...................... 13
2.2 Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Rights awareness .................................................................................................................... 20
2.4 LGBTI movements, campaigns, and supporting organizations ............................................... 24
3. Perception of Public Attitudes Toward LGBTI People ................................................................... 28
3.1 Attitudes toward LGBTI people and their visibility ................................................................. 28
3.2 LGBTI Perception of Acceptance Index ................................................................................... 31
4. Discrimination Against and Harassment of LGBTI People ............................................................ 34
4.1 Perceptions of discrimination ................................................................................................. 35
4.2 Personal experiences of discrimination .................................................................................. 37
4.3 Discrimination in the workplace ............................................................................................. 41
4.4 Discrimination in the education system ................................................................................. 45
4.5 Discrimination in the health care system ............................................................................... 48
4.6 Reporting discrimination to authorities .................................................................................. 53
4.7 Harassment ............................................................................................................................. 57
5. Violence Against LGBTI People ..................................................................................................... 66
5.1 Experiences of violence........................................................................................................... 66
5.2 Reporting violence to authorities ........................................................................................... 73
6. Improving the Situation for LGBTI People .................................................................................... 79
6.1 Current measures to improve LGBTI lives............................................................................... 79
6.2 What would improve the lives of LGBTI people?.................................................................... 82
7. Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................... 87
7.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 87
7.2 Recommendations and next steps .......................................................................................... 87
Annex 1. Method and Weighting ...................................................................................................... 90
Annex 2. List of CSO Survey Partner Organizations .......................................................................... 93
Annex 3: Demographics .................................................................................................................... 94
Annex 4: Croatia and Slovenia: A Longitudinal Analysis ................................................................. 108
Annex 5: Questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 111
Acknowledgments
This report is the product of more than two years of labor on the part of a team of many people and
organizations. Most of all, we would like to acknowledge the LGBTI people of the Western Balkans,
many of whom who shared insights into their lives as part of this work. We know this is not always
easy and we hope that we have done justice to your experience.
ERA – LGBTI Equal Rights Association for the Western Balkans and Turkey was central to the realization
of this report, in particular, Amarildo Fecanji and Dragana Todorović and their network of partners
throughout the region, who helped shape the questions and encouraged people to respond.
The survey was implemented, and the results analyzed thanks to the tireless commitment of the team
at IPSOS Strategic Marketing, led by Milena Lazic, Svetlana Logar, Vojislav Mihailovic, and Marko
Uljarevic.
The team appreciates the guidance and connections provided by the Williams Institute, especially
Andrew Park and Andrew Flores. The team would also like to thank the European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights (FRA) for its groundbreaking 2012 survey, on which this research was directly
built, as well as its advice on implementing the project.
At the World Bank, the team was led by Georgia Harley and Nicholas Menzies (Task Team Leaders),
with the unwavering support of Dominik Kohler (Project Coordinator). The team additionally drew on
the expertise of Kristen Himelein Kastelic, Marko Karadzic, and Runyararo Gladys Senderayi, and the
report benefited from the excellent editorial insights of Patricia Carley. Clifton Cortez, Eva Klove,
Antonio Mihajlov, Valerie Morrica, Merita Poni, Kristian Randjelovic, Koen Slootmaeckers, Marija
Vuletic, and Joao Pedro Wagner De Azevedo provided excellent comments as peer reviewers.
The close collaboration between the World Bank’s Governance Global Practice and the Country
Management Unit for the Western Balkans was critical to the success of this work. In particular, the
team is grateful to Ellen Goldstein, former Country Director for the Western Balkans, and Adrian
Fozzard, former Practice Manager for Europe and Central Asia in the Governance Global Practice, who
recognized this work early on and took an informed risk in supporting the team to initiate the research.
On this foundation and throughout implementation, Linda Van Gelder, Country Director for the
Western Balkans, Goran Tinjic, Senior Operations Officer, and Roby Senderowitsch, Practice Manager,
strengthened support and supervision, for which the team is deeply grateful.
All errors are the team’s alone, and the views expressed herein do not represent the position of the
World Bank or its Executive Directors.
Funding for this work was generously provided by the Nordic Trust Fund, a knowledge and learning
platform promoting human rights-based approaches to development.
The authors can be contacted at dkohler@worldbank.org.
Glossary of Terms
This glossary of terms and definitions is meant to provide a common basis for understanding, and to
provide terminology to describe concepts related to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender
expression, and sex characteristics
For some individuals, sex, gender, and sexuality are not categorical but a spectrum.
These are common terms and definitions as captured in the English language. It is important to note
that sexual orientation and gender identity terms of identification vary across cultures and
languages. This list is therefore by no means complete or exhaustive.
Acronyms
SOGI Sexual orientation and gender identity
LGBTI Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people
SGM Sexual and Gender Minorities
Sex
Sex The classification of a person as female, male or intersex. Infants are usually
assigned a sex at birth based on the appearance of their external anatomy. A
person’s sex is a combination of bodily characteristics, including their
chromosomes (typically XY chromosome= male, XX chromosome= female),
their reproductive organs and their secondary sex characteristics.
Sex Assigned at The sex classification of people at birth. This is usually assigned by a medical
Birth practitioner after a brief review of a newborn’s genitalia.
Sex Each person’s physical features relating to sex, including genitalia and other
Characteristics sexual and reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, hormones, and secondary
physical features emerging from puberty.
Intersex An umbrella term that refers to people who have one or more of a range of
variations in physical sex characteristics that fall outside of traditional
conceptions of male or female bodies. Some intersex characteristics are
identified at birth, while other people may not discover they have intersex
traits until puberty or later in life.
Note that intersex is not synonymous with transgender.
Gender Identity
Gender Gender refers to social, behavioral, and cultural attributes, expectations and
norms associated with being male or female.
There is increasing consensus that gender goes beyond the binary concept of
men and women.
Gender Identity Each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender (e.g. of
being a man, a woman, in-between, neither or something else), “which may
or may not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth or the
gender attributed to them by society. It includes the personal sense of the
body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of appearance or
function by medical, surgical or other means) and expressions of gender,
including dress, speech, and mannerisms.
Note that this sense of self is separate from sex assigned at birth and is not
related to sexual orientation. Gender identity is internal; it is not necessarily
visible to others.
Gender The way we show our gender to the world around us, through things such as
Expression clothing, hairstyles, and mannerisms, to name a few.
Masculinity/ Possession of the socially, historically, and politically constructed qualities
Femininity associated with men and women, or maleness and femaleness, in a society at
a particular time. The definitions change over time and are different from
place to place. Although they seem to be gender-specific, women perform
and produce the meaning and practices of the masculine, and men perform
and produce that of the feminine as well.
Cisgender Cis or cisgender are used for people whose gender identity is in alignment
with the sex assigned to them at birth. (Cis meaning “in alignment with” or
“on the same side”).
Transgender Refers to a person whose sex assigned at birth does not match their gender
identity. The term “trans” is often used as shorthand.
Trans man A person whose sex assigned at birth was female, but who identifies as male.
Trans woman A person whose sex assigned at birth was male, but who identifies as female.
Transphobia The irrational fear of those who are gender variant, and/or the inability to
deal with gender ambiguity. It also describes discriminatory treatment of
individuals who do not conform in presentation and/or identity to
conventional conceptions of gender and/or those who do not identify with or
express their assigned sex.
Sexual Orientation
Sexual Each person’s enduring capacity for profound romantic, emotional and/or
Orientation physical feelings for, or attraction to, person(s) of a particular sex or gender.
It encompasses hetero-, homo- and bi-sexuality and a wide range of other
expressions of sexual orientation.
Queer An umbrella term that includes lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender
people, intersex people, and others. For decades ‘queer’ was used solely as a
slur for gays and lesbians but was reclaimed by activists as a term of self-
identification.
Sexual and Persons whose sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or
Gender Minorities gender expression differ from those of the majority of the surrounding
society.
Lesbian A woman who predominantly has the capacity for romantic, emotional
and/or physical attraction to other women.
Gay A man who predominantly has the capacity for romantic, emotional and/or
physical attraction to other men. The term is sometimes used to also
describe women who are attracted to other women.
Heterosexual People who are attracted to individuals of a different sex and/or gender
identity from their own (also referred to as “straight”).
Bisexual People who have the capacity for romantic, emotional and/or physical
attraction to person(s) of the same sex or gender, as well as to person(s) of a
different sex or gender.”
Homophobia The fear, hatred or intolerance of homosexual people as a social group or as
individuals. It also describes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Biphobia The fear, hatred or intolerance of bisexuality and bisexual people as a social
group or as individuals.
Executive Summary
This survey was conducted to better understand the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
intersex (LGBTI) people in seven countries in Southeastern Europe: five in the Western Balkans -
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, FYR Macedonia, and Montenegro; as well as two
European Union (EU) member states, Croatia and Slovenia. The research adopted and adapted a
2012 survey of LGBT people carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
in 27 EU countries plus Croatia (which joined the EU in 2013) (the “FRA survey”). The FRA survey set a
benchmark for understanding the lives of LGBT people. In addition to the FRA survey, this current
survey also gathered specific information on the lives of intersex people.
The collective experiences of LGBTI people in the countries surveyed paint a distressing picture of
the harmful effects of discrimination, harassment, exclusion, and violence. The findings confirm that
generally, most LGBTI people hide their identities for fear of discrimination or worse and have
legitimate concerns about their safety, especially in public spaces, but also in their own homes. The
survey indicates that the majority of LGBTI people are not involved in LGBTI movements and have
limited knowledge of their rights and how to exercise them. Many are on the receiving end of offensive
jokes, insults, abusive language, and expressions of hatred. Discrimination in the workplace and in the
health care and education systems remains common, and incidents of exclusion and harassment are
widespread.
Despite the frequent discrimination, harassment, and violence that LGBTI people face, specific
incidents are seldom reported. In the few instances in which reports are made, there is usually
inaction or inadequate action to address the situation. Unsurprisingly, many LGBTI people are of the
view that very few beneficial measures are being taken to improve their lives and that more needs to
be done. For example, the public and LGBTI people themselves need to become more aware of LGBTI
rights, and national human rights authorities should be strengthened to effectively address and
protect those rights. Many respondents felt that the increased visibility of LGBTI people through, for
example, more vocal support from public figures would help promote respect for their rights.
Even though five years have passed since the FRA survey, the situation for LGBTI people in the
Western Balkan countries is much worse than the experience of their peers in the EU, across nearly
all dimensions. This is particularly concerning, as the FRA survey uncovered disturbing findings of
discrimination and violence against LGBT people. The poor situation for LGBTI people in Southeastern
Europe exists even with positive advancements in legislation. The FRA survey contributed to
discussions about measures that EU member states should take to improve the lives of LGBT people.
It is hoped that the findings of the current survey can do the same, as well as inform accession
discussions for those five Western Balkan states not yet part of the EU.
This is the largest survey of LGBTI people ever carried out in Southeastern Europe. A total of 2,296
people responded. In a context of widespread stigma, the survey was conducted online to allow the
widest number of people to participate privately and confidentially.1 Since respondents had to “opt
in” to the survey, the data is from self-selected participants and is therefore not a random sample of
LGBTI people in the participating countries. It is difficult to obtain a representative sample of LGBTI
people, so online surveys are considered the most appropriate method for surveying sexual and
gender minorities.2 The survey sampling method and recruitment is consistent with previous studies
of these populations, including the FRA survey.3 The sample was weighted to population targets
1 See Annex 1 for more details on the method, including safety measures.
2 Koch, N. S., and Emery J. A. “The Internet and Opinion Measurement: Surveying Marginalized Populations.” Social Science
Quarterly 82, no. 1 (2001): 131-1388; Rollins, J., and Hirch, H. N. “Sexual Identities and Political Engagement: A Queer Survey.”
Social Politics 10, no. 3 (2003): 290-313; and Swank E., and Frahs, B. “Predicting Electoral Activism among Gays and Lesbians in the
United States.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43, (2013): 1382-1393.
3 For example, James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Kiesling, M., Mottet, L, and Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S.
Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.
1
derived from a meta-analysis, and each country sample was weighted proportionately to the size of
its adults’ population.
Key findings
“My sister attacked me with a knife after finding out that I ha[ve] a boyfriend, and she took my
phone…. My father threatened [to] kill me...” (Gay man, Montenegro)
LGBTI people in Southeastern Europe experience violence at higher rates than those in the EU. One-
third (32 percent) of all respondents (and 54 percent of transgender respondents) reported being
victims of violence in the past five years (compared to 26 percent and 34 percent, respectively, in the
FRA survey). In half of the cases of violence, the perpetrators were known to the survivors. Only 17
percent of the cases of violence were reported to the police. The most common reasons for not
reporting violence were a belief that the police would not or could not do anything, fear of reprisal
from the perpetrator(s), and fear of violence from the police themselves. Action was taken against the
perpetrator in only 16 percent of the most serious cases of violence reported to the police.
Discrimination against LGBTI people is widespread. Ninety-two percent of respondents reported that
discrimination based on sexual orientation is common (compared to 75 percent in the FRA survey), 90
percent because a person is transgender (compared to 84 percent in the FRA survey), and 67 percent
because a person is intersex. Discrimination is widespread in the education system and the workplace
but less so in the health care profession.
Eighty percent of transgender respondents had personally experienced discrimination in the past
year, much higher than the 46 percent of transgender respondents in the FRA survey. Only 8 percent
of all respondents reported their most recent case of discrimination, lower than the 10 percent who
reported in the FRA survey. The most common reasons for not reporting discrimination were
skepticism that anything would happen or change (60 percent), a reluctance to reveal one’s identity
(39 percent), and fear of discrimination and ridicule (38 percent). The most common place to report
discrimination was to the police (36 percent of all those who reported).
LGBTI people across the region reported widespread intolerance. Nine out of 10 respondents (89
percent) reported that it is common for people to make offensive jokes about LGBTI people in
everyday life. As many as 68 percent reported that politicians commonly use offensive language to
describe LGBTI people, compared to the 44 percent who reported this in the FRA survey.
LGBTI people remain invisible across the region. Only 7 percent reported that public figures are open
about being LGBTI compared to 25 percent in the FRA survey. Eighty-three percent of respondents
with same-sex partners reported that they avoid holding hands in public because of safety concerns.
More than half of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (52 percent) in the seven countries surveyed do
not reveal their sexual orientation to anyone in their social environment apart from a few friends or
close family members. Almost two-thirds of transgender people (65 percent) and almost all intersex
people (93 percent) said that they never or rarely open about their identity.
Variations across countries
“…[G]ay people are treated as a marginal group of deviants without any rights in real life.”
(Gay man, Slovenia)
2
Although the overall situation is poor, there are differences between countries in the region. An
LGBTI Perception of Acceptance Index was constructed from the results of the survey, based on three
measures: tolerance, visibility, and positive steps toward inclusion. The index shows that the situation
is best in Slovenia and worst in Kosovo, then in FYR Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Generally, LGBTI people’s perception of their acceptance was consistently low across all the countries
surveyed, with no country scoring above two (low acceptance).
Index of Perception of General Acceptance of LGBTI People
1 = Very low acceptance 2 = Low acceptance 3 = High acceptance 4=Very high acceptance
2
1.94
1.68 1.69 1.72
1.5 1.52
1.43 1.47
1
Kosovo Macedonia Bosnia and Albania Montenegro Croatia Slovenia
Herzegovina
Means of the three indicators of acceptance (How common are: Expression of intolerance in public; Expression of sexual orientation in public;
Positive measures to promote human rights of LGBTI people) on the scale: 1. Very rare, 2. Fairly rare, 3. Fairly common, and 4. Very common
Base: Those who evaluated all questions on the scale from 1 to 4; Don’t know answers excluded (ranged from N=25 to N=146 depe nding on the
question); 85% of the sample (N=1980).
Variations across subgroups
Life is often most difficult for transgender people, with this community experiencing the highest
rates of violence and discrimination. In addition, three other characteristics stood out:
 Intersecting identities, or being part of more than one minority group, (e.g., ethnic, religious),
generally worsened outcomes. LGBTI people who are members of at least one other minority
group were more frequently victims of harassment (78 percent) and violence (43 percent)
than those who are not (58 percent and 31 percent, respectively).
 People who are involved in LGBTI movements were more likely to experience harassment (70
percent) and violence (49 percent) than those who are not (60 percent and 28 percent,
respectively).
 LGBTI people whose perceived gender differs from their birth gender (75 percent), in
particular, men who are perceived as feminine (79 percent), experienced harassment and
violence in far greater numbers than others (60 percent).
Way forward
“Being an intersex person … means having to act (to pretend) in the family, on the
street, at work, with friends, and everywhere...” (Intersex person, Kosovo)
The primary purpose of this survey was to contribute evidence on the lives of LGBTI people in
Southeastern Europe, rather than explore specific policy or operational interventions. Nonetheless,
the research findings reveal areas in need of urgent attention from domestic policymakers,
international organizations, and civil society organizations. This is especially important for the EU
candidate countries, in light of the requirements of the accession process. The survey results illustrate
that LGBTI people face discrimination, exclusion, and violence despite protective laws in most of the
surveyed countries. As a result, rather than focusing on additional legislative steps, there is a need to
3
bring existing law to life by: expanding the evidence base; raising awareness and capacity and closing
implementation gaps.
Expanding the evidence base
 Researchers, advocates, and policymakers should make the most of the data by conducting
further analysis to inform future research and interventions in particular countries and specific
subgroups of the LGBTI community. The full dataset is available here:
http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3212
 National statistical agencies should begin to regularly collect LGBTI-disaggregated data to
create the ongoing evidence needed to build more inclusive policies and programs; thereby
aligning themselves with statistical agencies in the most advanced countries.
Raising awareness and capacity
 Governments, in close cooperation with LGBTI civil society groups, should sensitize public
servants, including teachers, social workers, health care providers, and justice sector officials,
on LGBTI discrimination, and train them to better respond to the specific needs of LGBTI
victims of discrimination and violence.
 Governments and CSOs should focus on enhancing the awareness of the rights of LGBTI
people so that they can avoid harm and seek redress when affected.
 Governments, development partners and other donors are encouraged to support the
capacity of LGBTI civil society groups to provide services, such as counseling, data collection,
and policy reform advice to government.
Closing implementation gaps
 Governments should use the data to identify implementation gaps, especially related to the
requirements of the EU accession process under Chapters 23 and 24, and national statistical
agencies should conduct follow-up surveys to track progress.
 Governments should improve the response of the criminal justice system to violence against
LGBTI people, including creating safe avenues for reporting.
 Civil society groups should be supported in the creation of safe spaces where LGBTI people
can receive specialized services and support.
Taking action to promote LGBTI inclusion is the right things to do and makes economic sense. There
is increasing evidence that links exclusion with detrimental health, education and employment
outcomes for LGBT people, aggregating to broader impacts on the overall economy.4 These effects
can be mitigated with increased public acceptance for LGBTI people.5 Social inclusion of LGBTI people
is therefore important in and of itself, but also because it is the smart thing to do. More inclusive
societies are more likely to make the most of their entire stock of human capital. More open and
inclusive cities are better placed to attract international capital and talent. More open and inclusive
countries make attractive international tourist destinations. The data contained in this report provides
a sobering view of the challenges experienced by LGBTI people in Southeastern Europe. Addressing
these challenges will not only ensure that all people’s rights are protected, respected and fulfilled, but
will bring benefits to the societies, economies, and region at-large.
4 For example, Banks C. (2003). The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia in Canada .
Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskathewan; see also Becker, G. (1971).
The Economics of Discrimination, (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; see also Badgett, M.V.L. (2014) The Economic
Cost of Stigma and the Exclusion of LGBT People: A Case Study of India. Washington D.C.: World Bank
5 For example, Banks C. (2003). The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia in Canada .
Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskathewan; see also Becker, G. (1971).
The Economics of Discrimination, (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4
1. Introduction
There is a dearth of quantitative data on the lives of LGBTI people throughout the world. Yet, such
data is needed to shine a light on the challenges that LGBTI people face in various spheres of life and
inform actions that could be taken to address these challenges.
This research was undertaken to better understand the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and intersex (LGBTI) people in seven countries: five in the Western Balkans6 - Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Kosovo, FYR Macedonia, and Montenegro, as well as two European Union (EU)
member states Croatia and Slovenia. Conducted between February and April 2017, it was the largest
survey of LGBTI people ever carried out in these countries. A total of 2,296 LGBTI people7 responded
to the survey, providing a wealth of data about the lives of LGBTI people and their experiences with
discrimination, violence and harassment, rights awareness, and public perceptions.
The survey was designed and implemented based on a survey of LGBT people in Europe conducted
by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 2012 (“the FRA survey”). The FRA
survey documented the discrimination and victimization experienced by LGBT people in 27 EU
countries, as well as Croatia (which was not an EU member state at the time). That report’s findings
have contributed to discussions about the measures that EU member states should take to improve
the situation for LGBT people living in their countries. As the FRA survey is a benchmark for
understanding the lives of LGBT people in Europe, it was emulated for this study to compare the lives
of LGBTI people in the Western Balkans and to inform discussions on these states’ accession to the
EU.8 Unlike the FRA effort, this survey also gathered specific information on the lives of intersex
people. Similar to the FRA survey, the questionnaire for intersex people was developed based on
stakeholder consultations.
Like the FRA survey, this survey was conducted online. In a context of widespread stigma, online
engagement was chosen to allow the widest number of people to participate privately and
confidentially.9 The disadvantage is that the survey was limited to those who have access to the
internet. LGBTI people in rural areas, from smaller towns, with less education, and from older age
groups are likely under-represented in the data. Data collection was made possible by programming
the questionnaire in local languages using IPSOS’s own data entry program. All the logical checks in
the questionnaire were implemented. The data collection program guaranteed full protection of
respondents’ privacy and confidentiality, thus encouraging participation in this survey. A computer-
assisted web interviewing method was used to conduct interviews. The survey was available in all the
main web browsers, including Internet Explorer Mozilla Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera, and was
adjusted for use on different types of devices — desktop computers, personal computers/laptops,
tablets, and smartphones. Since respondents had to “opt-in” to participate in the survey, the collected
data is based on self-selected participants and is not a random sample.
Representative surveys of LGBTI populations are difficult to conduct due to the relative size of the
adult population who identify as LGBTI. Weighting can adjust sample characteristics to population
targets to correct over- and/or under-sampled groups. Weighting online samples can be effective in
providing generalizable results, though the process is sensitive to the weighting strategy.10 Due to the
6 The Western Balkans is primarily a geopolitical term that encompasses countries of the former Yugoslavia and Albania. In the past
decade, the term has been broadly associated with integration into the European Union (EU), a process through which most of the
countries in the region are undergoing. Serbia was not included in the analysis, as it was the subject of an independent LGBTI survey
conducted by the World Bank and partners at the same time, the results of which are being reported separately.
7 After weighting the sample, a total of 2,329 respondents were included in the analysis. For more detailed on the weighting
procedure see Annex 1.
8 Slovenia and Croatia are already EU member states.
9 See Annex 1 for more details on the method, including safety measures.
10 Kennedy, C., Mercer, A., Keeter, S., Hartley, N., McGeeny, K., and Giemenz, A. (2016). Evaluating Online Nonprobability Surveys.
Washington, D.C.: The Pew Research Center.
5
lack of administrative data on LGBTI populations, the weighting strategy only took into account sex
assigned at birth and sexual orientation. The sample was weighted to population targets derived from
a hierarchical, Bayesian meta-analysis. The sample was additionally weighted such that each country
sample was weighted proportionately to the size of its adults' population. This way, regional estimates
were adjusted for larger and smaller countries. The final adjustment was consistent with how the FRA
survey was weighted.11 When interpreting the results, special attention should be paid to the small
number of transgender (55 respondents after weighting, 53 before weighting) and intersex
respondents (89 after weighting, 83 before).
The research was conducted as a partnership between the World Bank, the ERA - LGBTI Equal Rights
Association for Western Balkans and Turkey (ERA), IPSOS Strategic Marketing, and the Williams
Institute. ERA administered the recruitment of participants through its partner civil society
organizations (CSOs) across the region, of which 22 were specifically engaged to disseminate the
survey.12 There were extensive efforts to make people aware of the research, to motivate them to
participate in the survey, and to invite more to take part. The survey was disseminated through social
networks (Facebook, Twitter, and national social networking platforms), online banners on major
national websites in each country that attract large LGBTI audiences, advertisements placed on gay
dating apps such as Grindr and PlanetRomeo, mailing lists, and oral channels. It is difficult to obtain a
representative sample of LGBTI people, so online surveys are considered the best and most
appropriate method for surveying sexual and gender minorities.13 The survey sampling method and
recruitment is consistent with previous studies of these populations.14
Notably, this report is the first to provide regional data on intersex persons. However, the data are
relatively meager and do not allow for a disaggregated analysis. Intersex persons have long been
completely invisible, even in the more progressive countries. Momentum for intersex rights is
growing, however, and intersex people have gained legal recognition in some countries, such as
Germany. It is hoped that the report will be part of a broader process that helps intersex people
advocate for the protection of their rights, even as many intersex people remain invisible and
collecting robust data about their lives is still very difficult.
The findings of the survey can be used to improve the situation for LGBTI people in the Western
Balkans, Croatia, and Slovenia. Development partners, national authorities, and CSOs can use the
data to advocate for the development of appropriate legal frameworks and policies to ensure that the
rights of LGBTI people are adequately protected. The findings can also contribute to EU accession
discussions and strengthen and facilitate the legislative and policy changes that prospective members
need to fulfill EU accession requirements. This report presents an overview of the findings across the
region, comparing results between LGBTI subgroups and across countries where notable. The report
does not intend to provide an in-depth analysis of any one particular subgroup or country. The data
sets are available online, and further analysis, including longitudinal analyses for Slovenia and Croatia,
which were part of the 2012 FRA survey, is highly encouraged.
This report is part of a broader World Bank research initiative: “Understanding the Socio-Economic
Dimensions of LGBTI Exclusion in the Western Balkans.” In addition to this survey, the initiative
includes one other large-scale survey, in Serbia (report forthcoming), that adapts the Survey on
Income and Living Conditions (SILC) to LGBTI people. That survey will enable LGBTI outcomes to be
11 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2012). EU LGBT Survey Technical Report: Methodology, Online Survey,
Questionnaire, and Sample. Vienna, AT: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
12 See Annex 2 for a list of organizations.
13 Koch, N. S., and Emery J. A. “The Internet and Opinion Measurement: Surveying Marginalized Populations.” Social Science
Quarterly 82, no . 1 (2001): 131-1388; Rollins, J., and Hirch, H. N. “Sexual Identities and Political Engagement: A Queer Survey.”
Social Politics 10, no. 3 (2003): 290-313; and Swank E., and Frahs, B. “Predicting Electoral Activism among Gays and Lesbians in the
United States.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43, (2013): 1382-1393.
14 For example, James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Kiesling, M., Mottet, L, and Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S.
Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.
6
compared to those of the general population. Because the SILC survey was fielded at the same time
as the regional survey reported here, Serbia was excluded from the regional survey to avoid confusion
among respondents and the risk of low response rates. The research initiative also includes two
mystery shopper experiments; on primary education and access to the private rental market.15 The
multifaceted nature of the initiative helps to develop a better understanding of the development
challenges and outcomes for LGBTI people as individuals, in the economy, and in society.
The remainder of Chapter 1 looks at the survey sample, the demographics of the participants, and the
method for capturing the results. It also includes an overview of the legal context of the countries
surveyed. In Chapter 2, the lived realities and experiences of LGBTI people are documented. The
survey sought to find out if LGBTI people are open about their status; if they are aware of their rights,
advocacy campaigns, and supporting organizations; and the nature of their safety concerns. Chapter
3 explores how LGBTI people believe they are perceived by the public, and how those perceptions
affect their quality of life and the decisions they take on a daily basis. Chapter 4 does a deep dive into
discrimination against, and harassment of, LGBTI people and the consequences. The survey gathered
information about discrimination in the workplace and in the education and health care systems.
Survey participants also gave their views on their experiences reporting discrimination and
harassment. Violence against LGBTI people is covered in Chapter 5, which documents respondents’
experiences of violence, the frequency of its occurrence, the nature of the violence, by whom it was
perpetrated, and the actions taken in response. Chapter 6 presents respondents’ views about the
adequacy of the measures that are currently being taken to improve their lives, as well as the
measures that they would like to see going forward. Chapter 7 consists of the conclusion,
recommendations, and next steps.
15Koehler, Dominik; Harley, Georgia; Menzies, Nicholas; Senderayi, Runyararo Gladys. 2017. Discrimination against sexual
minorities in education and housing: evidence from two field experiments in Serbia (English) . Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
Report available here:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/161011522071811826/Discrimination-against-sexual-minorities-in-education-and-
housing-evidence-from-two-field-experiments-in-Serbia
7
Access to markets, services and spaces matters
Social inclusion is at the core of the
World Bank’s twin goals, ending
extreme poverty and boosting shared
prosperity. The 2013 World Bank
flagship report “Inclusion Matters”
provided an analytical framework to
better understand the economic
effects of exclusion and address the
root causes of extreme poverty more
effectively. 16
Social Inclusion is defined as the ability
of people to access markets, services
and spaces. Each of these dimensions
provides opportunities and barriers
for inclusion. Individuals and groups
Source: “World Bank Group. 2013. Inclusion Matters: can be excluded from these
The foundation for shared prosperity.” dimensions for a variety of reasons
and exclusion from one area does not
necessarily result in exclusion from others. The negative economic effects of social
exclusion have been well documented and underline the importance of more inclusive
programs and policies.17 Available data from various countries suggests that sexual and
gender minorities are disproportionately overrepresented in the bottom 40 percent of
the economy.18 19
This research builds on the markets, services and spaces model established in the
“Inclusion Matters” report, by collecting data which can help policymakers, development
institutions, and civil society groups to better understand the exclusion LGBTI people face
in the region. It provides the first large-scale, quantitative data set on LGBTI exclusion in
most of the surveyed countries and should be used to inform policies and program to
more effectively foster the social inclusion of LGBTI people.
1.1. Sample and survey demographics
The survey was conducted with a self-selected, nonprobability sample.20 LGBTI people are a hard-
to-reach population with at least two characteristics that make standard random sampling procedures
inappropriate: the absence of a sampling frame (i.e., the characteristics of the total population are
unknown) and the strong need for privacy protection. As a result, it cannot be said that respondents
to the survey represent the LGBTI population as a whole. To address this concern, at least in part, the
sample was weighted based on a study of the literature.21 The structure of LGBTI respondents by
country is provided in the table below.
16 World Bank Group. 2013. Inclusion Matters: The foundation for shared prosperity .
17 World Bank Group. 2013. Inclusion Matters: The foundation for shared prosperity.
18 USAID; the Williams Institute. 2014. The Relationship between LGBT inclusion and Economic Development: An Analysis of
Emerging Economies.
19 OECD. 2017. LGBTI in OECD countries.
20 See Annex 1 for more details on the sample and weighting.
21 See Annex 1 for a description of the basis for the weighting.
8
Table 1.1.1. LGBTI Respondents, by Country (weighted number of respondents)
Lesbian Bisexual Bisexual
Country/LGBTI group Gay men Transgender Intersex Total
women women men
Albania 77 133 96 58 4 25 394
Bosnia and Herzegovina 97 174 122 70 7 17 487
Croatia 118 211 147 94 14 7 590
Kosovo 36 66 46 24 13 15 200
FYR Macedonia 51 97 71 41 7 15 282
Montenegro 17 27 20 12 3 6 85
Slovenia 61 103 72 42 8 4 289
Total 457 811 574 341 56 89 2329
In summary, the demographics of respondents are as follows:22
 Sex: Respondents who were assigned male sex at birth were slightly more likely to respond to
the survey (53 percent) compared to those who were assigned female sex at birth (47
percent).
o Slightly more transgender respondents were assigned female sex at birth (52
percent). On the other hand, among intersex respondents, a larger percentage were
assigned male sex at birth (64 percent).23
 Age: The average age of respondents was 27.6 years. Only 3 percent of respondents were
over 45 years old.
 Education: Almost all respondents had at least secondary school education, while only 2
percent had primary school education or less. About half of the respondents had college,
university, or other higher education.
o Transgender and intersex respondents were less likely to have higher education.
 Employment status: Every second respondent indicated that he or she was in paid
employment (49 percent), including those who were on temporary leave from work. Every
third respondent was a student (32 percent), while every fifth respondent was unemployed
or otherwise not working (including those in unpaid or voluntary work and those who are
retired or are otherwise not working).
o Intersex respondents were more likely to be unemployed, while gay respondents
were more often in paid employment. Bisexual women were more likely to be
students than to be engaged in paid work, indicating that they were among the
youngest respondents.
 Income: The monthly net household income of respondents ranged from €200 to €1,000 (20
percent reported income of €200–400, 20 percent income of €400–600, and 21 percent
income of €600–1,000). Slightly less than one in ten respondents reported extremely low or
high monthly incomes: 9 percent reported income of less than €200 per month, while 8
percent reported income above €2,000.
o Intersex respondents have the highest percentage of low monthly income (less than
€400).
 Residence: The majority of respondents live in urban areas. Every second respondent lives in
the capital city (53 percent), while an additional 20 percent live in other big cities. Only 6
percent of respondents live in rural areas.
o More transgender people live in the capital city (67 percent) than intersex people
(39 percent).
22 See Annex 3 for a full description of the survey demographics, including country-specific data.
23 For many transgender and intersex persons, “sex assigned at birth” is not a relevant category, as they do not identify with it.
9
 Relationship status: Only 51 percent of respondents were single. One-third were in a
relationship and not living with their partner (31 percent), while 16 percent lived with their
partner or spouse.
o Gay men respondents were predominantly single (60 percent), as were bisexual men
and intersex respondents (56 percent). The majority of lesbian respondents and
bisexual women, on the other hand, were in a relationship, as were transgender
respondents. Also, many lesbian respondents live with their partner or spouse (22
percent).
 Same-sex partners: Four out of five respondents in a relationship had same-sex partners (79
percent), while about one-fifth had a partner of the opposite sex (21 percent).
o Almost all respondents who identify as lesbian or gay had a partner of the same sex
(99 percent of lesbians and 98 percent of gays). On the other hand, every second
bisexual man or woman had a same-sex partner (54 percent of bisexual men and 53
percent of bisexual women).
 Marital status/civil status: 91 percent of respondents indicated that their civil status was
single. Only 6 percent were married or living in a registered partnership.
o Of those who were married or in a registered partnership, 48 percent were in a
legally recognized relationship with a same-sex partner and 52 percent were with a
partner of a different sex.
 Living with children: One-fifth of respondents live with one or more children in their
household (20 percent).
o Among LGBTI groups, transgender respondents (34 percent) and bisexual women (28
percent) reported having one or more children living in their household, which is
more than lesbians (15 percent) and gays (14 percent).
 Minority status: Slightly less than two-thirds of respondents considered themselves to be part
of a sexual minority (62 percent), and an additional 15 percent part of a gender minority. A
total of 31 percent of bisexual men and 28 percent of intersex respondents did not consider
themselves to be a part of any of the listed minorities.
o One out of ten respondents felt that they are part of a religious or an ethnic minority
group. A fifth of respondents said they do not consider themselves to be part of any
of the listed minorities (18 percent).
1.2 Legal Context
Homosexuality, predominantly interpreted as sex between men and almost never referring to
women or other identities, was criminalized in the Western Balkans for most of the 20th century. It
was first decriminalized in the socialist republics of Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and the Socialist
Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in 1977, and the rest of the countries in the region followed in the
1990s, after the collapse of Yugoslavia.
Relying mainly on EU and Council of Europe recommendations, anti-discrimination legislation has
been introduced across the region since the start of the 21st century (table 1.2.1). The legislation
mainly offers protection against discrimination in employment, education, and other public services.
In most countries, protection is offered on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only country in the region that protects intersex persons from
discrimination. On the other hand, FYR Macedonia is the only country that does not protect LGBT
people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression in its
anti-discrimination law. FYR Macedonia is also the only country that does not offer any communities
legal protection against hate crimes and/or hate speech.
10
Table 1.2.1. National Anti-Discrimination Laws and Characteristics They Protect
Name of Law Protected Characteristics
Country (Date of adoption of a law or relevant Sex
Sexual Gender
amendment) characteristic
orientation identity
s
Law on Protection from Discrimination
Albania
(February 4, 2010) ✓ ✓ ×
Bosnia and Law on Prohibition of Discrimination
Herzegovina (July 23, 2009, amended on August 31, 2016) ✓ ✓ ✓
Croatia The Anti-Discrimination Act (July 9, 2008) ✓ ✓ ×
Law on the Protection from Discrimination
Kosovo
(May 28, 2015) ✓ ✓ ×
The Law on Prohibition of Discrimination
Montenegro
(July 27, 2010, amended on March 26, 2014) ✓ ✓ ×
Law on Prevention and Protection against
FYR Macedonia
Discrimination (April 8, 2010)
× × ×
Protection against Discrimination Act (April
Slovenia
21, 2016) ✓ ✓ ×
Most of the countries do not allow same-sex marriages or registered partnerships. Only Croatia and
Slovenia allow same-sex registered partnerships, and Slovenia is the only country in the region where
same-sex marriages have been legalized (since February 2017).
Transgender people are negatively impacted by the fact that their personal data (such as name and
gender marker) are not reflected in official documents in a way that recognizes their gender identity.
In two out of the seven countries surveyed (Kosovo and FYR Macedonia), legal measures for
reassigned gender recognition do not exist at all (table 1.2.2). Although gender recognition procedures
exist in the other countries, they are often lengthy and complicated. For instance, the law in Albania
makes it possible for persons to change both their name and gender marker in official documents;
however, the changes can be made only pursuant to a court order and apply only prospectively,
meaning that existing documents remain unchanged. To change a gender marker, there must be a
medical report that proves that the person’s gender or sex has changed.24 Similarly, in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Slovenia, transgender people are required to undergo sterilization
before a gender identity that is different to that assigned at birth can be recognized. Although in some
cases sterilization is not explicitly required by law, it becomes necessary because of legislation that
requires proof of medical gender reassignment or a mandatory medical opinion that is traditionally
only provided after genital surgery.25 Croatia is the only country that does not require medical
procedures, such as sterilization, surgical interventions, or hormonal treatment, as preconditions for
legal gender recognition. However, in Croatia, as in all the other countries that have procedures for
legal gender recognition, a mental disorder diagnosis, an assessment of time lived in the new gender
identity, and a single civil status (forcing those who are married to get divorced) are required before
changes can be made in official documents. Because of these onerous requirements, many
transgender people still have documents that do not match their gender identity and consequently
face serious difficulties accessing services and facilities. Daily activities such as applying for a job,
getting a bank loan, and boarding a plane can become sources of distress, discrimination, and
24 UNDP, “Being LGBTI in Eastern Europe: Albania Country Report. Reducing Inequalities & Exclusion and Combating Homophobia
& Transphobia Experienced by LGBTI People in Albania” (New York: United Nations Development Programme, 2017),
http://www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/library/democratic_governance/being-lgbti-in-eastern-europe--albania-
country-report.html.
25 As the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has critically remarked, it is of “great conce rn that transgender people
appear to be the only group in Europe subject to legally prescribed, state-enforced sterilization.”
11
harassment. Further, showing personal documents that contain a name and gender marking that do
not correspond to the person’s appearance can trigger violence.
Table 1.2.2. Procedures for Legal Gender Recognition in Countries Surveyed26
Existence of procedures
diagnosis/psychological
No compulsory medical
No compulsory surgical
intervention required
intervention required
(available for minors)
sterilization required
Change of gender on
documents to match
No "Gender Identity
No age restrictions
opinion required
divorce required
gender identity
No compulsory
No compulsory
Name change
Disorder”
Country
official
Albania ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - - - -
Bosnia and
Herzegovina ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - - - -
Croatia ✓ ✓ ✓ - - ✓ ✓ - ✓
Kosovo - - - - - - - - -
Montenegro ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - - - -
FYR
Macedonia
- ✓ - - - - - - -
Slovenia ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - - - -
26 TGEU, “The Transgender Rights Europe Map & Index 2017,” Transgender Europe, https://tgeu.org/trans -rights-map-2017.
12
2. Daily Life for LGBTI People in Southeastern Europe
“Being gay … is the same as being invisible, unworthy, and hopeless, since revealing that
you are a gay can lead to psychological and physical violence, from the family or the
community.” (Gay man, Kosovo)
To understand the daily life of LGBTI people and to provide context on the lived reality of LGBTI people
in the region, the survey asked questions on openness about being LGBTI, safety, rights awareness,
LGBTI movements, and awareness of advocacy campaigns. The responses help to understand the local
context in which LGBTI people live and indicate the readiness of communities to deal with negative
impacts of discrimination, exclusion, and violence.
CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS
The majority of LGBTI people hide their sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics
in everyday life. Only 3 percent are completely open about their LGBTI identity, while 52 percent
are not open at all. This is likely related to an overall feeling of unsafety that LGBTI respondents
expressed; 61 percent said they avoid certain places because they do not feel safe.
LGBTI people often do not know about laws protecting them from discrimination. Only 49
percent of respondents know about laws protecting them from SOGI based discrimination.
2.1 Openness about sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics 27
“I haven’t told anyone. Worst of all is that I have no one to tell…Everyone is anti-gay(s).”
(Gay man, Croatia)
Overall, most LGBTI people (52 percent) never or rarely reveal their sexual orientation, gender
identity, or sex characteristics (figure 2.1.1). This rises to almost three quarters for intersex people
(72 percent) and for bisexual men (73 percent). However, transgender people and lesbians were more
likely to be open about their status.
27Openess about sexual orientation is a variable computed on the basis of a mean value of the respondents’ answers when asked
about the number of people they are open with/have come out to about their sexual orientation among nine groups: parents/legal
guardians, siblings, other family members, friends, neighbors, work colleagues/schoolmates, immediate superior/head of
department, customers/clients/etc. at work, and medical staff/health care providers. Answers for openness to parents/legal
guardians were given on a three-point scale (1 - None of them, 2 - One of them, and 3 - Both/all of them) and for all other groups
of people on a four-point scale (where 1 - None, 2 - A few, 3 - Most, and 4 - All). The answer “Doesn’t apply to me” was excluded
from computation. Based on the mean value of the answers for all nine groups, respondents were divided into four categories, i.e.,
levels of openness about their sexual orientation: Level 1 - Not open/out, with a mean value between 1 and 1.44; level 2, with a
mean value between 1.5 and 2.44; level 3, with a mean value between 2.5 and 3.44; and level 4 – Open/out, with a mean value
between 3.5 and 4. In the same manner, respondents’ general openness about being transgender or intersex was determined on
the basis of questions on openness about gender identity/being intersex in relation to various groups of people from different
settings, in the form of two indicators with four levels of openness.
13
Figure 2.1.1. Openness about Sexual Orientation,* Gender Identity,** and Sex Characteristics***
(%)
Not open Mostly not open Mostly open Open
REGIONAL AVERAGE 52 34 11 3
Lesbian 42 39 13 5
Gay 47 37 12 4
Bisexual women 53 36 10 1
Bisexual men 73 20 5 2
Gender identity 36 29 24 11
Sex characteristics 74 19 5 2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Questions: To how many people among the following groups are you open about your sexual orientation/gender identity/sex
characteristics? (Computed variable - Openess about sexual orientation/gender identity/sex characteristics).
*Base: All respondents who consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual; 98.5% of the sample (N=2293); item missingness
(N=2); range of "Does not apply to me" (N=11 to N=245 ).
**Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); item missingness (N=9);
range of "Does not apply to me" (N=2 to N=8).
***Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); item missingess (N=12); range of "Does not apply to me"
(N=2 to N=8).
“I live with my partner, but I tell people that he is my tenant…” (Gay man, Croatia)
Overall, people were more likely to be open with friends and work colleagues and least likely to be
open with neighbors, work customers, and clients (see Annex 3 table A3.1).
Openness about sexual orientation varied markedly across the countries included in the survey
(figure 2.1.2). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from Albania (69 percent) and Kosovo (74 percent)
were more likely to be closeted. In contrast, respondents from Slovenia and Croatia were more likely
to be out. Regionally, only a small percentage of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people reported that they
are always open about their sexual orientation.
14
Figure 2.1.2. Openness about Sexual Orientation, by country (%)
Not open Mostly not open Mostly open Open
REGIONAL AVERAGE 52 35 11 3
Albania 69 25 3 3
BiH 58 33 7 1
Croatia 39 44 13 4
Kosovo 74 20 4 2
FYR Macedonia 59 32 7 2
Montenegro 51 37 10 2
Slovenia 21 42 29 8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: To how many people among the following groups are you open about your sexual orientation? (Computed
variable - Openess about sexual orientation).
Base: All respondents who consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual; 98.5% of the sample (N=2293); item
missingness (N=2); range of "Does not apply to me" (N=11 to N=245 ).
“Most of the LGBT people find staying in the closet to be the best option for fitting in the
community. Especially when it comes to people who don’t live in Skopje. These smaller
communities are extremely conservative, and there is no toleration at all.”
(Gay man, FYR Macedonia)
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were more likely to be closeted about their status if they (i) live
outside big cities, (ii) have a monthly household income of less than €400, (iii) do not have a
relationship or partner, or (iv) are not involved in LGBTI movements.
Regionally, 60 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people said that they hide their sexual
orientation from both of their parents (or legal guardians), while those from Kosovo and FYR
Macedonia were even more likely to do so (table 2.1.2). Also, the percentage of bisexual men who
had not revealed their sexual orientation to their parents or legal guardians (76 percent) was
significantly above the regional average. On the other hand, almost one-quarter of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual people reported being open about their sexual orientation to both their parents or legal
guardians. Croatia, and especially Slovenia, stand out as countries with the highest percentage of
people who reported openness about their sexual orientation to both of their parents (every third
person in Croatia and every second person in Slovenia). Furthermore, lesbians (31 percent) and gays
(28 percent) were more likely to reveal their sexual orientation to both parents or legal guardians
compared to bisexual people (19 percent of bisexual women and 11 percent of bisexual men).
15
Table 2.1.2. Levels of Openness about Sexual Orientation to Parents/Legal Guardians, by country (%)
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
None of them 60 67 66 50 81 75 56 32
One of them 17 19 17 20 9 12 16 16
Both/all of them 23 14 17 30 10 13 27 51
N 2293 394 487 590 200 282 85 289
Question: To how many people among the following groups are you open/out to about your sexual orientation:
parents/legal guardians?
Base: All respondents who consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual; 98.5% of the sample (N=2293); item
missingness (N=2).
Only 11 percent of transgender people and 2 percent of intersex people reported that they are
completely open about their gender identity or being intersex (figure 2.1.3). Among intersex people,
as many as three out of four are not open about their situation, a figure that is one in three for
transgender people.
Figure 2.1.3. Openness about Gender Identity and Being Intersex (%)
Not open Mostly not open Mostly open Open
74
36
29
24
19
11
5
2
Openess about gender Openess about being
identity* intersex**
Question: To how many people among the following groups are you open about your gender identity/being intersex? (Computed
variables: Openness about gender identity and Openness about being intersex).
*Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); item missingness (N=9); range of
"Does not apply to me" (N=2 to N=8).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); item missingess (N=12); range of "Does not apply to me" (N=2 to
N=8).
2.2 Safety
On average, more than half of LGBTI respondents (61 percent) said that they avoid certain locations
for safety reasons, with the highest number in Kosovo (73 percent) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (71
percent) and the lowest in Slovenia (43 percent) (figure 2.2.1). The percentage of transgender (78
percent) and gay (67 percent) people who reported that they avoid certain places because they feel
16
unsafe is above the regional average, while the percentage of bisexual women is below the average
at 48 percent.
Figure 2.2.1. Avoiding Places Because of Feeling Unsafe, by country and LGBTI group (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER YES
Kosovo 73
Bosnia and Herzegovina 71
Albania 61
Croatia 60
FYR Macedonia 58
Montenegro 55
Slovenia 43
Gay 67
Lesbian 63
Bisexual male 62
Bisexual female 48
Transgender* 78
Intersex** 65
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Question: Do you avoid certain places or locations for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed because of your sexual
orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses (N=162); Don't know responses for LGB respondents (N=153).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); Don't know responses (N=3).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); Don't know responses (N=7).
Notably, males who are perceived as feminine, as well as those who are not open about their sexual
orientation, often avoided certain places for safety reasons. Generally, LGBTI people indicated that
they tend to stay away from places where there is a greater probability of being surrounded by many
unknown people (such as streets, squares, public transport, cafes, restaurants, clubs, public premises,
building, parks, and other public places) as opposed to places of more regular contact (workplace,
sports clubs, school, and home) (figure 2.2.2).
17
Figure 2.2.2. Perceiving Specific Locations as Unsafe to be Open about Sexual Orientation/Gender
Identity/Being Intersex (%) - PERCENTAGES WHO AVOID DIFFERENT LOCATIONS
A street, square, car parking lot, or other public place 80
Public transport 79
A cafe, restaurant, pub, club 75
Public premises or buildings 74
A park 65
Workplace 60
A sports club 55
School 48
My home 43
Other 19
0 20 40 60 80
Question: Where do you avoid being open about your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex
for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed by others?
Base: 61% of the sample, multiple answers (N=1421); Don't know responses (N=37).
There were some significant differences between countries. LGBTI people from Bosnia and
Herzegovina reported that they commonly avoid being open about their status in public areas such as
streets, squares, car parking lots, public transport, cafés, restaurants, pubs, clubs, parks, or sports
clubs. In FYR Macedonia, however, LGBTI people are more likely to avoid being open at school or at
home, while in Kosovo it was more frequently at home.
The majority (83 percent) of LGBTI people with same-sex partners said that they avoid holding hands
in public for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed. This tendency was highest in Bosnia
and Herzegovina and Kosovo (90 percent) and lowest (but still a majority) in Slovenia (61 percent)
(figure 2.2.3).
“Me and my girlfriend were holding hands (in a public place) and suddenly some
teenagers came to us and started insulting [us] because we are lesbians. They physically
attacked me and my [girl] friend. This incident happened in the morning and the city was
full of people, but nobody helped us…” (Lesbian, Slovenia)
Public expressions of status, such as holding hands, appear to be a much greater problem for men.
Bisexual men and gays were much more likely to avoid holding hands with a same-sex partner in public
(93 percent and 92 percent, respectively) than lesbian (72 percent), bisexual women (73 percent),
transgender (67 percent), and intersex respondents (79 percent).
18
Figure 2.2.3. Avoiding Holding Hands with Same-Sex Partner in Public Because of Feeling Unsafe, by
country and LGBTI group (%)
Yes Don't know No
REGIONAL AVERAGE 83 2 15
Bosnia and Herzegovina 90 2 8
Kosovo 90 4 6
FYR Macedonia 89 2 9
Croatia 86 2 12
Montenegro 76 4 20
Albania 75 2 23
Slovenia 61 3 36
Bisexual male 93 1 6
Gay 92 3 5
Bisexual female 74 4 23
Lesbian 72 2 26
Intersex** 79 4 17
Transgender* 67 3 30
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: Do you avoid holding hands in public with a same-sex partner for fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed?
Base: 75% of the sample – “I do not have a same-sex partner” answer excluded (N=1753); Don't know resposnes (N=38).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender (N=33); Don't know resposnes (N=1).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; (N=68); Don't know responses (N=3).
Further, two out of five transgender people (39 percent) reported that they always or often avoid
expressing their preferred gender through physical appearance and clothing for fear of being
assaulted, threatened, or harassed, while roughly the same proportion never avoid it (figure 2.2.4).
19
Figure 2.2.4. Avoiding Expressing Preferred Gender through Physical Appearance and Clothing
Because of Feeling Unsafe (%)
40
I always avoid it
I often avoid it
I sometimes avoid it
I avoid it, but rarely
20
38 I never avoid it
Not sure
21
18
12 10
1
0
Question: How often, it at all, do you avoid expressing your gender (or your preferred/desired gender) through
your physical appearnce and clothing for fear of being assaulted, threatened or harassed?
Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); item
missingness (N=3).
2.3 Rights awareness
Only half (49 percent) of the LGBTI people who took part in the survey were aware of laws that
forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics. Most of
the countries have legal protections for sexual orientation and gender identity except for FYR
Macedonia. Only one country, Bosnia and Herzegovina has legal protections for sex characteristics.
LGBTI people had particularly poor knowledge about the protection of intersex people in employment
(only 22 percent were aware of this).28 LGBTI people in Bosnia and Herzegovina had the lowest levels
of awareness (roughly only a third) about the three grounds for protection against discrimination:
sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only country
that protects against discrimination based on all three characteristics. On the other hand, the most
aware LGBTI people, where half or more were informed, were in FYR Macedonia, where there are no
legal protections for these categories (figure 2.3.1).
28 Respondents were poorly informed about existing anti-discrimination laws. They often wrongly believed that there is a law in
their country that forbids employment discrimination when such a law does really not exist, or the reverse, that such a law does not
exist in cases when it actually does. Also, a large number of LGBTI people in each country had no knowledge of whether an anti-
discrimination law exists in their country at all.
20
Figure 2.3.1. Awareness of Anti-Discrimination Laws Protecting the Three Grounds: Percentages of
Informed and Uninformed Individuals, by country (%)
SEXUAL ORIENTATION Uninformed Informed
REGIONAL AVERAGE 51 48.8
COUNTRIES WITH LEGAL PROTECTIONS
Kosovo 41 59
Montenegro 45 55
Croatia 46 54
Albania 49 51
Slovenia 54 46
Bosnia and Herzegovina 66 34
COUNTRIES WITHOUT LEGAL PROTECTIONS
FYR Macedonia 46 54
GENDER IDENTITY
REGIONAL AVERAGE 51 48.8
COUNTRIES WITH LEGAL PROTECTIONS
Kosovo 41 59
Montenegro 45 55
Croatia 46 54
Albania 49 51
Slovenia 54 46
Bosnia and Herzegovina 66 34
COUNTRIES WITHOUT LEGAL PROTECTIONS
FYR Macedonia 46 54
SEX CHARACTERISTICS
REGIONAL AVERAGE 78 22.4
COUNTRIES WITH LEGAL PROTECTIONS
Bosnia and Herzegovina 87 13
COUNTRIES WITHOUT LEGAL PROTECTIONS
FYR Macedonia 49 51
Kosovo 75 25
Albania 78 22
Slovenia 81 19
Croatia 82 18
Montenegro 82 18
Question: In the country where you live, is there a law that forbids discrimination against persons because of their: 1)
sexual orientation, 2) gender identity, 3) sex characteristics - when applying for a job?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses are categorized as uninformed.
At the regional level, those most aware of their rights were transgender people, as a little more than
half (53 percent) were aware of laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on gender
identity (figure 2.3.2). Every second lesbian, gay, and bisexual individual (49 percent) was informed
about the existence of anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation in employment.
However, only 28 percent of intersex people in the region were well informed about laws that
guarantee the right of job applicants/employees to be treated fairly, regardless of their sex
characteristics.
21
Figure 2.3.3. Awareness of Anti-Discrimination Laws for LGB Subgroups: Difference between
Percentages of Informed and Uninformed Individuals, by country (%)
100 Uninformed Informed
80
GENDER IDENTITY SEX CHARACTERISTICS
60
61
52 53 55 54
40 49 45
34
20
0
-20
39
-40 48 46 45 46
51 55
-60 66
-80
-100
REGIONAL ALB BIH CRO KOS MCD MNE SLO
AVERAGE
Question: In the country where you live, is there a law that forbids discrimination against persons because of their
sexual orientation - when applying for a job?
Base: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual respondents (94% of the sample, N=2185); all Don't know responses were
categorized as uninformed.
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from Kosovo were the most informed about their rights (61
percent), while the least informed were in Bosnia and Herzegovina (34 percent) (figure 2.3.3). Rights
awareness was not connected to experiences of discrimination in employment (when looking for a
job) in the past 12 months.
Respondents were much better informed about same-sex marriage and partnership rights, with 87
percent being fully aware of these rights. LGBTI people from Bosnia and Herzegovina were the most
aware about the legal status of same-sex unions (96 percent informed), while the least aware were
those from Kosovo (64 percent). Interestingly, about every fifth LGBTI person from Kosovo
(incorrectly) believed that same-sex marriages or registered partnerships were legal in their country.
Also, LGBTI people in Albania (17 percent) were significantly less informed compared to the regional
average (figure 2.3.4).
22
Figure 2.3.4. Awareness of Legal Status of Same-Sex Unions (Marriages and Registered Partnerships):
Percentages of Informed and Uninformed LGBTI People, by country (%)
Uninformed Informed
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
REGIONAL AVERAGE 13 87
COUNTRIES WITH LEGAL RECOGNITION
Slovenia 10 90
Croatia 12 88
COUNTRIES WITHOUT LEGAL RECOGNITION
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 96
Montenegro 9 91
FYR Macedonia 12 88
Albrania 17 83
Kosovo 36 64
Question: As far as you know, can same-sex couples legally marry and/or enter registered partnerships in the country
where you live?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses were categorized as uninformed.
Notably, bisexual people (men at 18 percent and women at 17 percent) were more uninformed about
laws concerning same-sex unions than lesbians (9 percent) and gay people (10 percent).
Young LGBTI persons, aged between 18 and 25 years, who do not live in the capital or any other
large city, as well as those with the lowest monthly household income, were the least informed
about laws regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in their
countries. On the other hand, LGBTI people who are involved in LGBTI movements or open about their
sexual orientation were more informed.
Regarding laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex characteristics, there are no clear
demographic profiles of informed and uninformed LGBTI people. Those involved in LGBTI
movements were slightly more informed compared to the regional average.
Demographic variations in awareness about the legal status of same-sex unions are similar to those
in laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The less informed were young LGBTI people and
those with lower monthly household incomes (between €400 and €600). LGBTI people who are not
open about their sexual orientation were less informed about regulations concerning same-sex
unions.
23
2.4 LGBTI movements, campaigns, and supporting organizations
“All of my friends, including me, who are a part of the LGBTI community, are not actively
involved in organizations that protect the rights of LGBTI people because we want to keep
our sexual identity hidden as much as we can. We are afraid that if we are identified as
supporters [of] such organizations, we would be discriminated against or even be exposed
to violence.” (Bisexual female, Albania)
The majority (82 percent) of LGBTI survey participants indicated that they are not involved in LGBTI
movements. Transgender people across the region (47 percent) and LGBTI people from Albania (30
percent) reported the greatest engagement. The percentage of LGBTI people involved in LGBTI
movements rises with increasing openness about sexual orientation. Also, the highly educated and
those living in capital cities are more engaged. Among LGBTI people who reported that they are not
involved in LGBTI movements, more than half (58 percent) considered taking part; that figure was 70
percent in FYR Macedonia but much lower in Croatia, where they were less inclined to engage.
Figure 2.4.1. Visibility of Public Awareness Campaigns Addressing Discrimination on Different
Grounds (%) - PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER YES - REGIONAL AVERAGE
Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people 67
Transgender people 50
Intersex people 32
People with disabilities 68
On the basis of sex 62
Ethnic minorities and migrant groups 59
On the basis of religion 40
On the basis of age 26
0 20 40 60
Question: In the country where you live, have you ever seen any program or awareness campaign by either the
government or a nongovernmental organization addressing discrimination on the basis of/against...?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses for gay, lesbian and bisexual (N=215); transgender (N=319);
intersex (N=455); disabilities (N=301); sex (N=296); ethnic minorities and migrants groups (N=334); religion (N=431);
age (N=474).
Regionally, the most noticeable public awareness campaigns are those dealing with discrimination
against people with disabilities, as well as discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people
(figure 2.4.1). Two-thirds (67 percent) of all LGBTI people had seen campaigns addressing
discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, which was similar to the percentage (65
percent) reported in the FRA survey. On the other hand, campaigns addressing discrimination based
on age and attitudes toward intersex people were the least visible (seen by less than a third of LGBTI
people).
However, countries vary considerably regarding the visibility of different awareness campaigns.
Discrimination campaigns against LGBTI people, in general, are most visible in Albania and least visible
in Kosovo (table 2.4.1). The visibility of discrimination campaigns may relate to the policies in place
24
protecting LGBTI people in each country. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina protects against sexual
orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics, and LGBTI people from Bosnia and Herzegovina
report lower visibility of campaigns addressing discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual
people. The pattern may reflect a legal environment already protective of these LGBTI groups. Other
patterns may reflect legal and social environments deterring the visibility of campaigns. For example,
there is only one country that protects against discrimination based on sex characteristics, and the
visibility of intersex campaigns is lower than other LGBTI campaigns.
Table 2.4.1. Variation in Visibility of Public Awareness Campaigns, by country (%) - PERCENTAGE OF
RESPONDENTS WHO ARE AWARE
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
Discrimination against gay, lesbian, and
67 78 59 64 54 67 83 80
bisexual people
Discrimination against people with disabilities 67 75 63 71 54 61 84 68
Discrimination based on sex 61 52 61 66 74 56 70 59
Discrimination against ethnic minorities and
59 58 56 59 51 61 56 69
migrant groups
Discrimination against transgender people 50 65 45 41 39 49 65 56
Discrimination based on religion 40 40 48 34 30 42 43 43
Discrimination against intersex people 32 38 33 25 22 35 53 30
Discrimination based on age 26 28 17 32 21 21 28 30
N 2329 394 487 590 200 282 85 289
Question: In the country where you live, have you ever seen any program or awareness campaign by either the government
or a nongovernmental organization addressing...?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses for gay, lesbian and bisexual (N=215); transgender (N=319); intersex
(N=455); disabilities (N=301); sex (N=296); ethnic minorities and migrants groups (N=334); religion (N=431); age (N=474).
There were no material differences between LGBTI subgroups regarding the visibility of programs
and awareness campaigns addressing discrimination against LGBTI people. Not surprisingly, LGBTI
people who live in capital cities, have a higher education, are involved in LGBTI movements, and are
more open about their sexual orientation were most familiar with initiatives that address
discrimination against them.
Familiarity with organizations providing support to LGBTI people
Except for intersex people, a sizable majority of LGBTI people were familiar with organizations that
support the LGBTI group they belong to: almost every transgender individual (98 percent), nine out
of 10 lesbians (92 percent), 86 percent of gays, 82 percent of bisexual women, and 71 percent of
bisexual men. On the other hand, only half of intersex people (50 percent) knew about organizations
that provide support to people who are discriminated against because they are intersex (figure 2.4.2).
25
Figure 2.4.2. Familiarity with LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Organizations (%)
No Yes
100
92 97 88 95 94 84 100 93 87 76 90 77 86 89 94
80 86
60
40
20
16 24 23 14
8 3 12 5 6 7 4 13 10 11 6
0
Lesbians aware of domestic organizations supporting Gays aware of domestic organizations supporting
lesbians who face discrimination gays who face discrimination
Base: Lesbian respondents; 20% of the sample (N=457). Base: Gay respondents; 35% of the sample (N=812).
100
82 67 85 90 78 95 83 71 78 60 69 64 76 67 86
80
60
40
20 33 40 36 33
22 29 22 31 24
18 15 10 17 14
0 8
Bisexual women aware of domestic organizations Bisexual men aware of domestic organizations
supporting bisexuals who face discrimination supporting bisexuals who face discrimination
Base: Bisexual women respondents; 25% of the sample Base: Bisexual men respondents; 15% of the sample
(N=575). (N=341).
100
80
50
60
98
40
20 50
2
0
REGION REGION
Transgender people aware of domestic organizations Intersex people aware of organizations supporting
supporting transgender people who face discrimination intersex people who face discrimination
Base: Transgender respondents; 2% of the sample (N=55). Base: Intersex respondents; 4% of the sample (N=89).
No missing or refused responses from any LGBTI group.
26
Attendance at LGBTI events
Regionally, nearly half of respondents (47 percent) had attended an LGBTI event at least once. Only
18 percent reported that there were no events in their place of residence, and 35 percent had never
attended an LGBTI event in their city. In Albania and Kosovo, the percentage of LGBTI people who had
never attended an LGBTI event was above the regional average (53 percent and 46 percent,
respectively). LGBTI people from Croatia had attended LGBTI events more often (55 percent) than in
the other countries surveyed. LGBTI people from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia reported that
there were no LGBTI events where they lived.
Transgender people (72 percent), as well as lesbians (56 percent), attended LGBTI events more
frequently than other LGBTI groups. Conversely, about half of the bisexual men surveyed (51 percent)
had never attended an LGBTI event. People between 26 and 35 years old, living in a capital city, with
higher education, in paid work, or with a monthly household income of more than €1,000 were more
likely to have attended LGBTI events.
27
3. Perception of Public Attitudes Toward LGBTI People
Public attitudes toward minority groups can have an important impact on the quality of their lives.
Studies show that the lack of social acceptance and a pervasive feeling of disapproval and neglect may
have grave consequences on LGBTI people’s physical and psychological well-being.29 To better
understand the lived experience of LGBTI people, the survey asked respondents to state their:
₋ Perceptions of public attitudes toward LGBTI people, including expressions of intolerance and
the visibility of LGBTI people in public
₋ Perceptions of changes that would have a positive impact on LGBTI people’s lives, including
positive measures to promote respect for the human rights of LGBTI people
Together, these three variables (tolerance, visibility, and positive measures) were used to construct an
LGBTI Perception of Acceptance Index.
CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS
LGBTI people across the region reported widespread public hostility: Nine out of 10 respondents
across the region (89 percent) said that people commonly make offensive jokes about LGBTI people
in everyday life. In the FRA survey, 37 percent of respondents reported that jokes were “very
widespread.” According to 68 percent of respondents, politicians commonly use offensive
language to describe LGBTI people, compared to 44 percent who reported this in the FRA survey.
Only 7 percent of LGBTI people stated that public figures are open about being LGBTI compared to
25 percent in the FRA survey.
Slovenia is the most accepting country regarding all three indicators, while the least accepting are
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and FYR Macedonia.
3.1 Attitudes toward LGBTI people and their visibility
According to LGBTI people in the region, expressions of intolerance are high, LGBTI people are hardly
visible in public, and positive measures to improve their lives are rare. 89 percent of people said
that offensive jokes are common, and 85 percent reported public expressions of hatred and aversion.
Only 8 percent of respondents said that it is common for same-sex partners to hold hands in public
compared to 86 percent who said this about heterosexual couples. A mere 7 percent of respondents
were of the view that it is typical for public figures to be open about their LGBTI status. Moreover,
only a quarter of respondents across the region (25 percent) thought that positive measures to
promote the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are common, while even fewer thought
this about the promotion of the rights of transgender (14 percent) or intersex people (12 percent)
(figure 3.1.1).
29 See, for example, I. H. Meyer, “Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Populations: Conceptual
Issues and Research Evidence,” Psychological Bulletin 129, no. 5 (2003): 674–97; and V. M. Mays and S. D. Cochran, “Mental Health
Correlates of Perceived Discrimination among Lesbian, Gay And Bisexual Adults in the United States,” American Journal of Public
Health 91, no. 11 (2001): 1869–76.
28
Figure 3.1.1. Indices of Acceptance of LGBTI People (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON - REGIONAL AVERAGE
Jokes that might be considered offensive in everyday life
about LGBTI people
89
Intolerance
Expressing
Expressions of hatred and aversion toward LGBTI people
in public
85
Offensive language about LGBTI people by politicians
68
67
Assaults and harassment against LGBTI people
Heterosexual partners holding hands in public
86
Visibility of
people
LGBTI
Same-sex partners holding hands in public
8
Public figures are open about themselves being LGBTI
people
7
Positive measures to promote respect for the human
rights of LGB people
25
measures
Positive
Positive measures to promote respect for the human
rights of transgender people
14
Positive measures to promote respect for the human
rights of intersex people
12
Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=25 to N=146).
3.1.1 Intolerance and visibility vary across countries
“…[G]ay people are treated as a marginal group of deviants without any rights in real life.”
(Gay man, Slovenia)
Intolerance and visibility vary across the region but are problematic in all countries (table 3.1.1.1).
Slovenia, for example, stands out with a smaller share (but still a majority) of respondents perceive
expressions of intolerance to be common. In Slovenia, 71 percent said that offensive jokes about LGBTI
people are common and 56 percent believed that about expressions of hatred and aversion, compared
to a regional average of 89 percent and 85 percent, respectively. Just about half of respondents from
Slovenia (51 percent) thought that politicians commonly use offensive language about LGBTI people,
while 27 percent viewed assaults and harassment of LGBTI people as routine.
As many as 50 percent of respondents in Slovenia thought that positive measures to promote
respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were widespread, a positive
assessment that could be explained by the recent advancements in the recognition of same-sex
partnerships there.30 However, people in Slovenia were much less positive about the existence of
measures that promote respect for the human rights of transgender and intersex people, as only 20
percent and 16 percent, respectively, thought they were common.
30On February 24, 2017, Slovenia provided same-sex partners with the same legal rights as married people, with the exception of
the ability to pursue adoption and in-vitro fertilization. Partnership of same-sex couples was recognized in 2006.
29
Table 3.1.1.1. Indices of Acceptance of LGBTI People, by country (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON
Montenegr
Herzegovin
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
o
a
Intolerance
Jokes that might be considered offensive in
89 88 96 91 95 89 91 71
everyday life about LGBTI people
Expressions of hatred and aversion toward LGBTI
85 88 94 84 92 93 91 56
people in public
Offensive language about LGBTI people by
68 65 79 65 69 78 91 51
politicians
Assaults and harassment against LGBTI people 67 74 79 67 82 67 76 27
Visibility
Same-sex partners holding hands in public 8 12 4 5 2 8 14 14
Public figures are open about themselves being
7 8 7 8 2 4 17 5
LGBTI
Positive measures
Positive measures to promote respect for the
25 27 13 29 14 11 36 50
human rights of LGB people
Positive measures to promote respect for the
14 20 8 15 10 7 27 20
human rights of transgender people
Positive measures to promote respect for the
12 16 7 13 9 6 23 16
human rights of intersex people
Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don’t know responses range (N=25 to N=146).
Expressions of intolerance are most common in Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, and
Kosovo. Nearly all respondents (96 percent) from Bosnia and Herzegovina felt that jokes about LGBTI
people are common and 94 percent thought the same about expressions of hatred and aversion.
Offensive language about LGBTI people by politicians was perceived as most common in Bosnia and
Herzegovina (79 percent), followed by FYR Macedonia with 77 percent. In Kosovo, 82 percent of
respondents said that assaults and harassment are common.
LGBTI people are least visible in Kosovo, where only 2 percent of respondents said that it is common
for same-sex partners to hold hands in public or for public figures to be open about being LGBTI. It
is also uncommon for same-sex partners to hold hands in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia (4
percent and 5 percent, respectively). LGBTI people are most visible in Montenegro, where 14 percent
of respondents said it is common for same-sex partners to hold hands in public, and 17 percent
thought that public figures are generally open about being LGBTI (table 3.1.1.1).
People in Bosnia and Herzegovina and FYR Macedonia were least likely to perceive measures to
promote respect for the human rights of LGBTI people to be common. Only 13 percent of
respondents in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 11 percent in FYR Macedonia said that positive measures
to promote respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are common. Even fewer
respondents, only 8 percent in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 7 percent in FYR Macedonia, said that
measures to promote the human rights of transgender people are common, and in both countries,
30
very few respondents (7 percent and 6 percent, respectively) said the same about measures to
promote the human rights of intersex people.
On the other hand, in Montenegro and Slovenia, measures to promote the human rights of LGBTI
people were perceived as common. Over one-third (36 percent) of respondents perceived such
measures to be common for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, while 27 percent and 23 percent,
respectively, said the same about transgender and intersex persons (table 3.1.1.1).
3.2 LGBTI Perception of Acceptance Index31
An overall index of perception of the acceptance of LGBTI people confirms that the situation is quite
negative across all countries in the region, ranging from very low to fairly low acceptance (figure
3.2.1). The situation is best in Slovenia, followed by Croatia; it is worst in Kosovo.
Figure 3.2.1. Index of Perception of General Acceptance of LGBTI People
1=Very low acceptance; 2=Low acceptance; 3=High acceptance; 4=Very high acceptance
2
1.94
1.68 1.69 1.72
1.5 1.47 1.52
1.43
1
Kosovo Macedonia Bosnia and Albania Montenegro Croatia Slovenia
Herzegovina
Means of the three indicators of acceptance (How common are: Expression of intolerance in public; Expression of sexual
orientation in public; Positive measures to promote human rights of LGBTI people) on the scale: 1. Very rare, 2. Fairly rare, 3. Fairly
common, and 4. Very common
Base: Those who evaluated all questions on the scale from 1 to 4; Don’t know answers excluded (N=412); 85% of the sample
(N=1980).
3.2.1 Differences between LGBTI groups and across demographic characteristics
There are very few differences in perceptions across LGBTI subgroups. Respondents see the
situation as equally negative regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender
expression. The only material differences are:
 Bisexual men perceived the situation regarding assaults against LGBTI people as slightly less
negative (58 percent reported it as common compared to the regional average of 67 percent).
 Intersex people perceived the situation as somewhat less negative relative to regional
averages for the visibility of LGBTI people.
Several demographic variables were analyzed to assess their impact on perceptions. Systematic
impacts were found for three demographic characteristics: belonging to another minority group
(such as an ethnic or religious group), activism in the LGBTI movement, and sex assigned at birth.
31 The overall Perception of
Acceptance Index was computed based on mean scores for each of the three groups of indicators, which
was done to avoid the influence of a different number of items within each of the three. The item “heterosexual couples holdi ng
hands in public” was omitted. Scores on the items related to open expression of intolerance were reversed, so that higher scores
mean less intolerance.
31
LGBTI people who belong to at least one other minority group viewed the situation as even more
negative than those who do not belong to any other minority group. They were more likely to report
that expressions of intolerance are common and less likely to say the same about positive measures
(figure 3.2.1.1).
Figure 3.2.1.1. Indices of Acceptance, by singular or multiple minority group membership (%)
Not member of other minority groups Member of at least one more minority group
88 94 90
84
26 9 7
20 16 13
Jokes that might be Expressions of hatred Positive measures to Positive measures to Positive measures to
offensive about LGBTI and aversion toward promote respect for promote respect for promote respect for
people LGBTI the human rights of the human rights of the human rights of
lesbian, gay, or transgender people intersex people
bisexual people
Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=25 to N=146).
People involved in LGBTI movements were more likely to report expressions of intolerance but
were more positive about measures to promote rights (figure 3.2.1.2).
Figure 3.2.1.2. Indices of Acceptance, by LGBTI movement involvment (%)
Not involved in LGBTI movement Involved in LGBTI movement
88 93 90
84 76
66
24 30
Jokes about LGBTI people Expressions of hatred and Offensive language about Positive measures to
that might be offensive aversion toward LGBTI LGBTI by politicians promote respect for the
human rights of lesbian,
gay, or bisexual people
Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=25 to N=146).
32
Across all four surveyed indices, those assigned female sex at birth reported higher levels of
intolerance in their respective countries (figure 3.2.1.3).
Figure 3.2.1.3: Indices of Acceptance, by sex assigned at birth (%)
PERCENTAGE OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON
Men (assigned at birth) Women (assigned at birh)
87 92 83 88
66 70 63 72
Jokes about LGBTI people Expressions of hatred and Offensive language about Assaults and harrasment
that might be offensive aversion toward LGBTI LGBTI by politicians against LGBTI people
Question: In your opinion, how common are the following in the country where you live?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=25 to N=146).
33
4. Discrimination Against and Harassment of LGBTI People32
“It isn't easy being part of [the] LGBT community…. [We] face discrimination everywhere
and from everyone every day!” (Gay man, Albania)
Discrimination33 and harassment34 can negatively affect physical and psychological well-being, as well
as the ability to develop economic and social capital. The survey asked respondents about their
perceptions of discrimination (Section 4.1). Additionally, the survey asked respondents about their
personal experience with discrimination (Section 4.2) and if they had reported those experiences.
Specific questions were asked about discrimination during schooling, in employment, and when
accessing health care services. Respondents were also asked about harassment.
CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS
Ninety-two percent of respondents stated that discrimination based on their sexual orientation
is either fairly common or very common. This is higher than what was reported in the FRA survey,
where 75 percent of respondents perceived discrimination to be fairly or very widespread. More
than 70 percent of respondents perceived discrimination based on gender expression and gender
identity to be fairly or very common, lower than that reported in the FRA survey (84 percent).
Perceived discrimination based on gender identity was worse for people who are members of at
least one other more minority group (83 percent compared to 74 percent in the whole LGBTI
population on a regional level). Belonging to at least one other minority group, as well as the
perception of being of a sex other than the one assigned at birth, increased the probability of
experiencing discrimination.
Fifty-two percent of respondents reported personal experience with discrimination based on
their sexual orientation in the past year. This is slightly higher than that reported in the FRA survey
(47 percent).
Eighty percent of transgender respondents reported a personal experience with discrimination
based on gender identity and 75 percent reported this experience based on gender expression.
These percentages are much higher than what was reported in the FRA survey (46 percent).
Only 8 percent of respondents stated that they had made an official report following their most
recent case of discrimination, slightly lower than the 10 percent who said this in the FRA survey.
The most common reasons for not reporting included: skepticism that anything would happen or
change pursuant to making the report (60 percent); a reluctance to reveal their sexual orientation
and/or gender identity and/or being intersex (39 percent); fear of discrimination or ridicule (38
32 Prior to asking about attitudes and experience with discrimination, respondents were provided with the following explanation of
discrimination: “By discrimination we mean when someb ody is treated less favorably than others because of a specific personal
feature such as their age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, minority background, or for any other reason. For example,
discrimination can occur when a woman is not given an equal opportunity to be promoted in her job in comparison with a man,
although she is equally suitable and experienced. Discrimination also occurs when persons who are in an unequal position are being
treated in the same (equal) way. For instance, persons with disabilities are in an unequal position in comparison to persons without
disabilities. In other words, discrimination is unequal treatment of equals and equal treatment of unequals.“
33 Discrimination: When a person is treated less favorably than others because of a specific personal feature, such as age, gender,
gender identity, sexual orientation, minority background, or any other reason.
34 Harassment: Unwanted and disturbing behavior, such as name calling or ridiculing, that does not involve actual violence or the
threat of violence.
34
percent); and pessimism about the worth of reporting since discrimination happens routinely (34
percent).
Three out of five LGBTI people indicated that they had been harassed in the past five years. The
transgender community was the most exposed to harassment.
4.1 Perceptions of discrimination
There was a widespread perception that discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender
expression, and gender identity is pervasive in the region. Discrimination on these grounds was
perceived to be higher than other characteristics, such as ethnicity, religion, and age (figure 4.1.1).
Perceptions of discrimination are important because they impact the lives of LGBTI people in a number
of ways, for instance, with regard to mental health, decisions about how or whether to seek
employment, and family and other relationships.
Figure 4.1.1. Perceptions of Discrimination Based on Various Characteristics (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON - REGIONAL AVERAGE
Sexual orientation 92
Gender expression 77
Gender identity 74
Ethnic origin 72
Sex 62
Origin within the country 61
Level of income 60
Disability 54
Religion 53
Age 38
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: Please specify how often the people are discriminated based upon the following characteristics in the
country where you live. Is discrimination based on these characteristics very rare, fairly rare, fairly common, or very
common?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=37 to N=237).
Respondents in Slovenia were the least likely to report discrimination based on sexual orientation
and respondents in Bosnia and Herzegovina the most likely. Transgender people were the most likely
to perceive discrimination, and intersex the least likely (figure 4.1.2).
35
Figure 4.1.2. Perceived Level of Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation, by country and
LGBTI group (%) - PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON
REGIONAL AVERAGE 92
Bosnia and Herzegovina 95
Albania 94
Kosovo 94
FYR Macedonia 94
Croatia 93
Montenegro 92
Slovenia 79
Lesbian 95
Bisexual female 94
Gay 90
Bisexual male 89
Transgender* 96
Intersex** 85
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: Please specify how often the people are discriminated based upon the following characteristics in the country where you
live. Is discrimination based on sexual orientation very rare, fairly rare, fairly common, or very common?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses (N=37).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); Don't know responses (N=0).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); Don't know responses (N=5).
LGBTI people in the region believed discrimination to be most common against gays (92 percent)
and transgender people (90 percent), followed by discrimination against lesbians (78 percent),
intersex people (67 percent), and bisexual people (66 percent) (figure 4.1.3).
Figure 4.1.3. Perception of Discrimination against Different LGBTI Groups (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: FAIRLY COMMON + VERY COMMON - REGIONAL AVERAGE
92
Gay
90
Transgender
78
Lesbian
67
Intersex
66
Bisexual
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: In your opinion, in the country where you live, how common is discrimination because a person is… (Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex).
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=28 to N=567).
36
Across the region, Slovenia had the lowest level of perceived discrimination, yet even there, LGBTI
people believed discrimination against them to be “fairly common” (figure 4.1.4).35 The rates of
perceived discrimination were significantly higher in the other countries surveyed, with Kosovo faring
the worst.
Figure 4.1.4. How Common is Discrimination Because a Person is LGBTI?
HIGHER SCORES INDICATE MORE DISCRIMINATION
1=Very rare; 2=Fairly rare; 3=Fairly common; 4=Very common
4
3.47 3.47 3.49 3.52
3.38
3.29
3 2.93
2
1
Slovenia Croatia Montenegro FYR Bosnia and Albania Kosovo
Macedonia Herzegovina
Question: In your opinion, in the country where you live, how common is discrimination because a person is…
(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex).
Base: 99% of the sample (N=2305); Don’t know answers excluded (N=87).
4.2 Personal experiences of discrimination
Almost half of the respondents reported that they had been discriminated against or harassed in
the past 12 months because of their identity (figure 4.2.1). The percentage was considerably higher
(80 percent) for transgender people as a separate group. The percentage of intersex people, gays, and
lesbians who had faced discrimination and harassment was relatively high at 56, 52, and 51 percent,
respectively.
35 Average of the five items referring to discrimination because a person is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex.
37
Figure 4.2.1. Experienced Discrimination or Harassment in the Past 12 Months, Because of Being
LGBTI, by LGBTI group (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER YES - REGIONAL AVERAGE
REGIONAL AVERAGE 49
Transgender people* 80
Intersex people** 56
Gays 52
Lesbians 51
Bisexual women 45
Bisexual men 37
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Question: In the past 12 months, in the country where you live, have you personally felt discriminated against or harassed because
of being perceived as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/intersex?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses range (N=43 to N=89).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); Don't know responses (N=1).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); Don't know responses (N=6).
Younger persons, students, and people with lower incomes reported higher rates of discrimination
because of their sexual orientation (figure 4.2.2). Unemployed LGBTI people, and those with low
incomes, as well as those affiliated with at least one additional minority group were also more
exposed to discrimination. Additionally, LGBTI people who express a gender identity that is different
from the sex assigned to them at birth experienced significantly higher rates of discrimination.
Figure 4.2.2. Discriminated against or Harassed on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation in the Past 12
Months, by age group, income, and employment status (%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE 52
18-25 59
26-35 46
36-45 49
45+ 35
Less than €400 60
€400-600 52
€600-1,000 49
More than €1,000 47
Student 61
Unemployed or otherwise not working 55
In paid work 45
0 20 40 60
Question: In the past 12 months, in the country where you live, have you personally felt discriminated against or
harassed on the basis of one or more of the following grounds...sexual orientation?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Don't know responses (N=135).
38
Discrimination against LGBTI people in everyday life
LGBTI people experienced discrimination in many everyday interactions, with transgender people
reporting a much higher rate of unequal treatment (figure 4.2.3).
Figure 4.2.3. Transgender and LGBI Respondents Who Experienced Unequal Treatment at Least Once in
the Past 6 Months Because of Being Perceived to be LGBTI (%)
Transgender people LGBI people (excluding trans)
You have been treated with less courtesy than other people
65
25
You have been treated with less respect than other people
60
27
You have received poorer services than others (e.g., in restaurants, shops)
35
13
People have acted as if they thought you were not smart
39
19
People have acted as if they were afraid of you
34
22
People have acted as if they thought you were dishonest
30
18
People have acted as if they were better than you
59
34
You have been followed around by people in public places, such as a shop
28
9
0 20 40 60
Question: In the past six months, in your day-to-day life, how often have any of the following things happened to you
because you are or are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or intersex?
Base: Transgender respondents (N=55); Don't know responses range (N=5 to N=10); and other LGBI respondents
(N=2274); Don't know responses range (N=196 to N=244).
4.2.2 Circumstances in which LGBTI people experience discrimination
The highest incidences of discrimination were experienced in public places, such as cafes,
restaurants, bars, or nightclubs (27 percent). Discrimination at school or university was also quite
common (23 percent), as was discrimination when using social media (21 percent) and at work or
when looking for a job (both 20 percent). Discrimination when accessing banking or insurance services,
or when presenting official documents that identify a person’s sex, was less common (6 percent and
9 percent, respectively) (figure 4.2.2.1).
39
Figure 4.2.2.1. Being Discriminated against in Various Situations Because of Being LGBTI in the Past
12 Months (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER YES - REGIONAL AVERAGE
At a cafe, restaurant, bar, or nightclub 27
By school/university personnel. This could have happened to
you as a student or as a parent 23
When using social media with your real name and information 21
At work 20
When looking for a job 20
When looking for a house or apartment to rent or buy (by
people working in a public or private housing agency, by a… 19
By health care personnel (e.g., a receptionist, nurse, or doctor) 15
By social service personnel 14
When using public transportation 13
At a sport or fitness club 11
At a shop 11
When showing your ID or any official document that identifies
your sex 9
In a bank or insurance company (by bank or company
personnel) 6
0 20
Question: During the past 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against in any of the following situations because of
your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex, as you described yourself above.
Base: Those respondents who had experience with various situations in the past 12 months, range (N=634 to N=2295); Don't know
responses range (N=44 to N=107).
Again, in almost all the situations mentioned, unemployed LGBTI people or those with lower
incomes, as well as those belonging to at least one other minority group, personally felt
discriminated against much more often than the regional average. In addition, LGBTI people who are
perceived by others to be at odds with the sex assigned to them at birth were exposed to higher levels
of discrimination, in particular, males who are perceived as feminine.
Overall, the lowest levels of discrimination were experienced in Croatia and the highest in
Montenegro, Kosovo, and Albania. When the experiences reported by members of different LGBTI
groups are compared, transgender people were by far the most vulnerable to discrimination (53
percent), followed by intersex people. Bisexual females reported the lowest number of incidents of
discrimination.
40
4.3 Discrimination in the workplace
“I was told openly not to inform anyone at work about my sex[ual] orientation in order not
to get fired.” (Gay man, Croatia)
Figure 4.3.1. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 5 Years (%)
Hidden or disguised your sexual orientation and/or gender 64
identity and/or being intersex at work
Heard or seen negative comments or conduct against your 41
colleague because she/he is perceived to be LGBTI
Experienced a general negative attitude at work against 35
people because they are LGBTI
24
Been open at work about being LGBTI
Experienced unequal treatment with respect to employment 16
conditions or benefits (e.g., leave, pension, etc.) because of…
Experienced negative comments or conduct at work because 14
of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or…
0 20 40 60
Question: How often during your employment in the past 5 years, have you...
Base: Those respondents who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=1749); Does not apply to me responses range (N=27
to N=200).
Two-thirds (64 percent) of LGBTI people reported that in the past five years, they have often or
always hidden their SOGI identity at work. Forty-one percent of LGBTI people had witnessed negative
attitudes, comments, and conduct toward LGBTI colleagues, 14 percent had personally experienced
such comments or conduct, and 16 percent had experienced unequal treatment with respect to
employment conditions or benefits (figure 4.3.1).
Transgender people, men perceived as feminine, and lesbians were discriminated against more
severely at work. These groups reported the highest rates of negative comments, conduct, and
discrimination. LGBTI people with low incomes experienced higher levels of discrimination at work.
The situation is better in Slovenia, where a significantly higher percentage of LGBTI people are open
about their gender identity or sexual orientation or being intersex at work. Very few LGBTI people
from Slovenia had experienced negative comments, conduct, or attitudes at work. Similarly, few
reported discrimination regarding benefits and employment conditions (table 4.3.1). LGBTI people in
Croatia also reported fewer negative comments or conduct against their LGBTI colleagues compared
to the regional average, though a smaller percentage of respondents are open about their gender
identity, sexual orientation, or intersex status at work. Bosnia and Herzegovina stands out with high
rates of respondents who reported negative attitudes toward LGBTI people at work. The situation in
Kosovo is also particularly bad, as discrimination in the workplace was reportedly widespread.
41
Table 4.3.1. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 5 Years (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
Hidden or disguised your sexual orientation
and/or gender identity and/or being intersex at 64 67 70 63 71 67 63 47
work
Heard or seen negative comments or conduct
against your colleague because she/he is 41 48 47 35 57 46 45 19
perceived to be LGBTI
Experienced a general negative attitude at work
35 38 43 34 38 42 45 15
against people because they are LGBTI
Been open at work about being LGBTI 24 26 17 18 17 23 18 47
Experienced unequal treatment with respect to
employment conditions or benefits (e.g., leave,
16 15 21 15 25 15 18 5
pension, etc.) because of your sexual orientation
and/or gender identity and/or being intersex
Experienced negative comments or conduct at
work because of your sexual orientation and/or 14 19 13 12 24 9 16 10
gender identity and/or being intersex
N 1749 263 341 492 146 198 67 244
Question: How often during your employment in the past 5 years, have you...
Base: Those respondents who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=1749); Does not apply to me responses
range (N=27 to N=200).
Among the different LGBTI groups, bisexual men were less open about their sexual orientation in
the workplace compared to the regional average, while transgender people were more open.
However, transgender people reported higher rates of negative comments and behavior (figure 4.3.3).
Lesbians were also vulnerable in the workplace, revealing high rates of negative attitudes and conduct
as well as discrimination against them at work.
42
Table 4.3.2. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 5 Years (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS
Bisexual men
Transgender
Intersex**
Regional
Bisexual
average
Lesbian
women
Gay
*
Hidden or disguised your sexual orientation and/or 64 61 63 61 76 51 64
gender identity and/or being intersex at work
Experienced a general negative attitude at work 35 43 32 35 38 30 20
against people because they are LGBTI
Been open at work about being LGBTI 24 28 25 24 11 46 13
Experienced unequal treatment with respect to
employment conditions or benefits (e.g., leave,
16 20 14 11 17 27 23
pension, etc.) because of your sexual orientation
and/or gender identity and/or being intersex
Experienced negative comments or conduct at work
because of your sexual orientation and/or gender 14 18 12 11 12 30 17
identity and/or being intersex
N 1749 349 629 392 272 43 65
Question: How often during your employment in the past 5 years, have you...
Base: Those respondents who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=1749); Does not apply to me responses
range (N=27 to N=200).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who had a paid job anytime during the
past 5 years (N=43); Does not apply to me responses range (N=0 to N=3).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex and who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=65); Does not apply
to me responses range (N=2 to N=7).
4.3.1 Comparing countries and LGBTI groups on overall workplace discrimination
Transgender people reported the highest rate of discrimination in the workplace in the past 12
months (38 percent), well above the figure for Kosovo (27 percent), the country with the highest
rate overall, and the regional average (20 percent) (figure 4.3.1.1).
43
Figure 4.3.1.1. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 12 Months, by country
and by LGBTI group (%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE 20
Kosovo 27
Albania 24
Montenegro 24
Bosnia and Herzegovina 21
FYR Macedonia 20
Croatia 17
Slovenia 15
Transgender* 38
Intersex** 24
Lesbian 23
Gay 20
Bisexual man 19
Bisexual woman 16
0 20 40
Question: During the past 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against at work because of your sexual orientation
and/or gender identity and/or being intersex, as you described yourself above.
Base: Those respondents who worked/were employed in the past 12 months (N=1545); Don't know responses (N=92).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who worked/were employed in the past 12 months
(N=39); Don't know resposnes (N=1). **Base: All respondents who are intersex and who worked/were employed in the past 12
months (N=56); Don't know responses (N=2).
Figure 4.3.1.2. Discrimination at Work Because of Being LGBTI in the Past 5 Years,
homogenous subsets of the countries
HIGHER SCORES INDICATE GREATER PRESENCE OF DISCRIMINATION
1=Never 4=Always
2
2.42 2.43 2.45 2.55
2.29 2.37
1.91
1
Slovenia Croatia Albania Macedonia Montenegro Bosnia and Kosovo
Herzegovina
Question: How often during your employment in the past 5 years, have you...
Base: Those respondents who had a paid job anytime during the past 5 years (N=1749); Does not apply to me
responses range (N=27 to N=200).
44
A composite measure of discrimination over the past five years shows that discrimination against
LGBTI people in the workplace had occurred frequently in Kosovo and less often in Slovenia (figure
4.3.1.2).36
4.4 Discrimination in the education system
“The hardest period of my life was secondary school, when children used to tease me that
I am gay, although they didn't know that. The worst incident happened in a bus when I
was spat at and physically attacked.” (Gay man, Croatia)
Discrimination in the education system is even worse than in the workplace. Although 64 percent of
LGBTI respondents reported that they hide their identity at work, as many as 76 percent hide it at
school (figure 4.4.1), where only 11 percent of respondents said that they openly talk about their
sexual orientation or gender identity or being intersex. Additionally, although 41 percent of LGBTI
people had heard or witnessed negative comments or behavior against LGBTI people by colleagues,
70 percent had seen this from schoolmates or peers. Moreover, 44 percent of respondents had
experienced negative comments or conduct from teachers. Finally, 14 percent of respondents had
experienced negative conduct in the workplace, while 35 percent had experienced this at school.
Figure 4.4.1. Discrimination during Schooling before Age 18 Because of Being LGBTI (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS - REGIONAL AVERAGE
Hide or disguise your sexual orientation and/or gender
identity and/or being intersex at school
76
Hear or see negative comments or conduct against your
schoolmate/peer because she/he was perceived to be LGBTI
70
Hear or see negative comments or conduct because a teacher
was perceived to be LGBTI
44
Experience negative comments or conduct at school because
of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or…
35
Openly talk at school about your sexual orientation and/or
gender identity and/or being intersex
11
0 20 40 60 80
Question: How often during your schooling before the age of 18, did you…
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Does not apply to me responses range (N=74 to N=139)
Male respondents rarely talked openly at school about being LGBTI but nonetheless were often on
the receiving end of negative comments or conduct compared to females. The highest reported rate
of negative conduct toward LGBTI people in the school system was among males who are perceived
as feminine. This mirrors the general status quo, as males who are perceived to be feminine
experienced much higher levels of discrimination than other groups within the LGBTI community.
Again, Slovenia emerged as the best performer in the region, with lower rates of reported negative
comments or conduct toward LGBTI people themselves or their schoolmates, teachers, or peers
because of being perceived as LGBTI compared to other countries (table 4.4.1). On the other hand,
compared to the regional average, LGBTI people in Kosovo were more reluctant to openly talk about
their sexual orientation, gender identity, or being intersex at school.
36One item whose orientation was not in accordance with the orientation of the other items was re-oriented (the item, “Been open
at work about your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex, as you described yourself above”).
45
Table 4.4.1. Discrimination during School before Age 18 Because of Being LGBTI, by country (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
Hear or see negative comments or conduct
against your schoolmate/peer because she/he 70 69 75 69 75 76 69 55
was perceived to be LGBTI
Hear or see negative comments or conduct
44 42 50 42 50 48 52 28
because a teacher was perceived to be LGBTI
Experience negative comments or conduct at
school because of your sexual orientation and/or 35 36 39 36 39 32 31 26
gender identity and/or being intersex
Openly talk at school about your sexual
orientation and/or gender identity and/or being 11 12 13 9 6 10 9 14
intersex
N 2329 394 487 590 200 282 85 289
Question: How often during your schooling before the age of 18, did you…
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Does not apply to me responses range (N=74 to N=139).
Among different groups of LGBTI people, gays reported that they hide their sexual orientation the
most and also experienced higher rates of negative comments and conduct at school. Bisexual
women did not face the same level of discrimination; in fact, across all the groups of LGBTI people,
they experienced the lowest level of negative comments and conduct at school and do not hide their
sexual orientation as much as the others (table 4.4.2). Transgender people reportedly talk openly at
school about their identity but also experienced higher rates of negative behavior.
Table 4.4.2. Discrimination during School before Age 18 Because of Being LGBT, by LGBTI group (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: OFTEN + ALWAYS
Bisexual men
Transgender
Intersex**
Regional
Bisexual
average
Lesbian
women
Gay
*
Hide or disguise your sexual orientation and/or gender
76 71 86 68 81 70 56
identity and/or being intersex at school
Experience negative comments or conduct at school
because of your sexual orientation and/or gender 35 27 49 20 33 53 42
identity and/or being intersex
Openly talk at school about your sexual orientation
11 13 8 14 8 22 10
and/or gender identity and/or being intersex
N 2329 457 812 575 341 55 89
Question: How often during your schooling before the age of 18, did you…
Base: Total sample (N=2329); Does not apply to me ranges (N=74 to N=139).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); Does not apply to
me responses range (N=4 to N=7).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); Does not apply to me responses range (N=3 to N=6).
46
4.4.1 Comparing countries and LGBTI subgroups on discrimination in education
Transgender people reported the highest rate of discrimination in education in the past 12 months
(34 percent), above the rate for Bosnia and Herzegovina (30 percent), where it was most prevalent
overall, and the regional average (23 percent).
Figure 4.4.1.1. Discrimination by School or University Personnel Because of Being LGBTI in the Past
12 Months, by country and LGBTI group (%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE 23
Bosnia and Herzegovina 30
Kosovo 28
Albania 24
FYR Macedonia 24
Montenegro 24
Slovenia 16
Croatia 14
Transgender* 34
Intersex** 31
Lesbian 27
Gay 25
Bisexual woman 21
Bisexual man 13
0 20
Question: During the past 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against by school/university personnel because of your
sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex, as you described yourself above.
Base: Those respondents who attended school/university themselves or their child/children was/were in school/at university in the
past 12 months (N=1303); Don't know responses (N=67).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who attended school/university themselves or their
child/children was/were in school/at university in the past 12 months (N=31); Don't know responses (N=0).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex and who attended school/university themselves or their child/children was/were in
school/at university in the past 12 months (N=53); Don't know responses (N=3).
As with the workplace climate, the composite measure of the school climate shows that the
situation is best in Slovenia and worst in Kosovo (figure 4.4.1.2).37
Figure 4.4.1.2. Discrimination DURING SCHOOLING before Age 18 Because of Being LGBTI
HIGHER SCORES INDICATE GREATER PRESENCE OF DISCRIMINATION
4
1=Never 4=Always
3
2 2.81 2.84 2.86 2.88 2.97 3.02
2.63
1
Slovenia Albania Croatia Montenegro Bosnia and FYR Kosovo
Herzegovina Macedonia
37One item whose orientation was not in accordance with the orientation of other items was re-oriented (the item, “Openly talk at
school about your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex”).
47
4.5 Discrimination in the health care system
“I don't feel safe in my country because of my sexual orientation. I can't get the necessary
health or psycho-social services… More awareness and special care for the gay persons
infected by HIV/AIDS is needed, because there is nothing at the moment.”
(Gay man, Albania)
Fewer LGBTI people had experienced discrimination in the health care system than in the workplace
or at school. Overall, 39 percent of respondents had experienced discrimination when using or
attempting to access health care services (figure 4.5.1). Of particular concern is the fact that one-tenth
of respondents had foregone medical treatment because of fear of discrimination or intolerant
reactions (12 percent). The most common experiences were inappropriate curiosity (17 percent) and
difficulty searching for and finding an LGBTI-friendly health practitioner where they live (16 percent).
Within the different groups of LGBTI people, the survey showed that transgender and intersex persons
were the most likely to experience difficulty in finding an LGBTI-friendly health practitioner and also
more likely to forego treatment for fear of discrimination. Transgender people often faced more
inappropriate curiosity than other groups within the LGBTI community.
Figure 4.5.1. Discrimination When Using or Trying to Access Health Care Services Because of Being
LGBTI - REGIONAL AVERAGE (%)
Inappropriate curiosity 17
Difficulty looking for or finding an LGBTI-friendly health
practitioner in your area 16
Foregoing treatment for fear of discrimination or intolerant
reactions 12
Receiving unequal treatment when dealing with medical staff 8
Specific needs ignored (not taken into account) 7
Having to change general practitioners or other specialists due to
5
their negative reaction
Difficulty in gaining access to health care 4
Pressure or being forced to undergo any medical or psychological
test 4
I have never accessed health care services 5
None of the above 61
0 20 40 60
Question: Have you ever experienced any of the following situations when using or trying to access health care services
because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
A country-by-country analysis demonstrates that discrimination in health care was less prevalent in
Slovenia relative to the other countries in the region (table 4.5.1). On the other hand, the situations
in Albania and Kosovo were not as favorable, with greater percentages of respondents reporting that
discrimination exists in various respects.
48
Table 4.5.1. Discrimination When Using or Trying to Access Health Care Services Because of Being LGBTI, by
country (%)
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
Difficulty looking for or finding an LGBTI-friendly
16 21 14 12 20 18 14 14
health practitioner in your area
Foregoing treatment for fear of discrimination or
12 10 14 16 9 12 13 5
intolerant reactions
Receiving unequal treatment when dealing with
8 6 5 6 6 21 7 6
medical staff
Specific needs ignored (not taken into account) 7 5 7 5 13 5 11 7
I have never accessed health care services 5 13 3 3 12 3 6 1
Difficulty in gaining access to health care 4 7 2 3 8 4 7 1
Pressure or being forced to undergo any medical
4 6 3 3 3 5 4 3
or psychological test
None of the above 61 53 63 66 54 51 62 71
N 2329 394 487 590 200 282 85 289
Question: Have you ever experienced any of the following situations when using or trying to access health care services
because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
There are clear variations between different groups of LGBTI people in their experiences with the
health care system (table 4.5.2). Both transgender and intersex respondents had difficulty finding an
LGBTI-friendly health practitioner—more than 40 percent compared to 16 percent of LGBTI people
overall. Transgender and intersex respondents also reported higher rates of foregoing treatment
because of fear of discrimination: 38 percent of transgender respondents and 26 percent of intersex
respondents compared to 12 percent overall. Transgender people often faced inappropriate curiosity
as well; 35 percent reported this compared to 17 percent overall. On the other hand, bisexual women
reported lower levels of discrimination in health care.
49
Table 4.5.2. Discrimination When Using or Trying to Access Health Care Services Because of Being LGBTI, by
LGBTI group (%)
Bisexual men
Transgender
Intersex**
Regional
Bisexual
average
Lesbian
women
Gay
*
Inappropriate curiosity 17 20 18 12 16 35 19
Difficulty looking for or finding an LGBTI-friendly
16 16 16 10 14 42 41
health practitioner in your area
Foregoing treatment for fear of discrimination or
12 10 13 7 14 38 26
intolerant reactions
Having to change general practitioners or other
5 5 5 3 4 20 10
specialists due to their negative reaction
Difficulty in gaining access to health care 4 4 5 1 3 16 14
Pressure or being forced to undergo any medical or
4 3 6 2 2 7 3
psychological test
None of the above 61 62 60 68 63 24 35
N 2329 457 812 575 341 55 89
Question: Have you ever experienced any of the following situations when using or trying to access health care services
because of your sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89).
4.5.2 Opinion about sex altering surgery on intersex infants38
Opinions among intersex people were divided on the subject of performing sex-altering surgeries on
intersex infants. Fifty-two percent said they should not be performed, while 48 percent said they
should (figure 4.5.2.1).
Figure 4.5.2.1. Opinions about Sex-Altering Surgery on Intersex Infants (%)
Sex-altering surgery
Sex-altering surgery
should be performed on
should not be performed
intersex infants
on intersex infants
52 48
Question: Thinking about sex-altering surgery on intersex infants, which comes closer to your opinion?
Base: Intersex respondents (N=89); no missing or refused responses.
38 In
addition to their views on sex-altering surgery, respondents were asked whether they personally had experienced such surgery.
Only one person answered “yes.” This result is considered unreliable, and it is possible that respondents did not fully understand
the question.
50
4.5.3. Seeking help from mental or physical health facilities for being intersex
Sixteen percent of intersex respondents (14 intersex respondents) had sought help from mental or
physical health facilities for being intersex (figure 4.5.3.1).
Figure 4.5.3.1. Seeking Help from Mental or Physical Health Services for Being Intersex (%)
Don`t know/
Refuse
6
Yes
16
I do not want/
need help…
No
54
Question: Have you ever sought help from mental or physical health services for being intersex/having a variation of sex
characteristics you were born with?
Base: Intersex respondents (N=89).
All intersex persons who had sought health care visited a psychologist or psychiatrist (14 intersex
respondents), while three also visited a general medical practitioner. Two had visited a surgeon, and
one an endocrinologist. Intersex people were pleased with the services provided and found health
professionals informative and helpful, or in some cases, very willing to help but unable to offer
everything they needed.
The most common reasons why intersex people did not seek health care were fear and the absence
of such help in their country.
Figure 4.5.3.2. Reasons for Not Seeking Help from Mental or Physical Health Services for Being Intersex
First answer All answers
I do not dare to 20
38
It is not available in the country where I live 35
36
I do not have confidence in the services provided 4
27
I do not know where to go 1
26
It is not covered by my country's public health insurance 10
20
I am afraid of prejudice from the care providers 2
15
It is too complicated in terms of bureaucracy 15
I cannot afford it due to financial reasons 2
13
It takes too much time (including waiting lists) 4
11
I have had previous bad experiences with care providers 1
2
Other 23
Question: Why not? 0 20 40
Base: Intersex respondents who didn't seek help (N=48); no missing or refused responses.
51
Life of Intersex People
Findings from the survey point to the fact that there are marked differences in the lives
and experiences of people within the LGBTI population and each subgroup faces unique
challenges and difficulties. Policies and legal frameworks are often not disaggregated and
do not take into account the diverse lived realities and varied experiences of each LGBTI
subgroup with regard to discrimination, exclusion, harassment, and violence. Although
this is true across the board, it is particularly the case for intersex and transgender people,
who are often the most invisible part of the LGBTI acronym but who nevertheless, as these
findings reveal, face more serious challenges than lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
Although this is the first survey to collect regional data on intersex people, the sample is
quite small and as such does not allow for a disaggregated analysis (by country, for
example). Given this and the fact that they are often missed in research, this box focusses
on the experiences and challenges faced by intersex people as determined by the survey.
Openness about being intersex
o Three out of four intersex respondents said that they are not open about their
intersex identity.
Discrimination
o More than half of intersex people have personally experienced discrimination.
Transgender people were the only other subgroup within the LGBTI population
who experienced more discrimination than intersex people.
o Compared to the regional average, twice as many intersex people were
discriminated against while looking for a job, by health care and social service
personnel, at sports clubs, or when using public transportation. Discrimination
against intersex people in the labor market, especially in seeking employment,
was higher even than discrimination against lesbians, gays, and bisexuals on the
grounds of sexual orientation. According to the survey, roughly 40 percent of
intersex job seekers had encountered discrimination.
o Regarding discrimination in the health care system, both intersex and
transgender people are in a very difficult position, reporting that they struggle to
find an LGBTI-friendly health practitioner. They also avoid medical treatment out
of fear of discrimination. Less than one-fifth of intersex people have sought help
from mental or physical health facilities for being intersex. Of the few who have,
the majority were satisfied with the services provided, stating that health
professionals were informative and helpful. The main reasons for not seeking help
from mental or physical health facilities were:
o It was not available in the country they live in (or was not covered by the
country’s public health insurance).
o They were afraid to seek help.
o They were wary of having to face prejudice and discrimination from
health care providers or did not have confidence in the services that
would be provided.
o Opinions were divided on the subject of whether intersex infants should
undergo sex-altering surgery: half of the intersex people stated that it
should be performed, and the other half disagreed.
52
o Compared to the regional average, intersex people often did not report incidents
of discrimination because of fear of intimidation by perpetrators and because
they were too emotionally upset.
Harassment
o According to the survey, Intersex people, together with lesbians and bisexual
women, were one of the least harassed LGBTI groups.
o As with discrimination, intersex people were unlikely to report incidents of
harassment to the police due to the emotional distress involved. Intersex
respondents tended to deal with these matters on their own.
Five ways to improve the lives of intersex people
“It would have been good if there was financial support from the state for
gender changing surgeries.” (Intersex, FYR Macedonia)
o Conduct widespread awareness-raising campaigns about where intersex people
can get support and assistance.
o Encourage and support the establishment of peer support groups.
o Introduce and continuously communicate measures that promote and protect
the rights of intersex people.
o Take specific actions to respond to the challenges that intersex people face that
prevent them from having a good quality of life.
o Raise public awareness about the existence of intersex people and encourage
national authorities to actively promote their rights.
4.6 Reporting discrimination to authorities
Although every second LGBTI respondent had been discriminated against in the past year, only 8
percent reported the discriminatory incident to the authorities (figure 4.6.1). This was consistent
across countries in the region and across LGBTI groups. The most common place to report
discrimination was to the police (36 percent), followed by an LGBTI organization (28 percent).
53
Figure 4.6.1. Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination and the Place of Reporting
REGIONAL AVERAGE (%)
Police 36
Yes No Don't know
LGBTI organization 28
4 8 Nongovernmental organization 20
State or national institution (such as an
equality body) 8
Hospital or other medical service 6
89 General victim support organization 3
Other organization 22
Questions: Thinking about the most recent incident, did you or anyone else report it anywhere? Where did you or anyone else report it?
Base 1: Those respondents who had at least one experience of discrimination in the past 12 months; 49% of the sample (N=1130); no
missing or refused responses.
Base 2: Those respondents who reported the most recent incident of discrimination; 4% of the sample, multiple answers, (N=90); Don’t
know responses (N=14).
The most common reasons for not reporting incidents of discrimination were (1) a strong belief that
nothing would happen or change pursuant to the report (60 percent), (2) a reluctance to reveal their
sexual orientation or gender identity or that they are intersex (39 percent), and (3) fear that they
would be subjected to further discrimination or ridicule (38 percent) (figure 4.6.2).
Figure 4.6.2. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination (%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE
Nothing would happen or change 60
Did not want to reveal my sexual orientation and/or gender… 39
Fear of discrimination or ridicule 38
Not worth reporting it - it happens all the time 34
Concerned that the incident would not have been taken… 33
I did not think people would understand what I was talking… 30
Didn't know how or where to report 17
Fear of intimidation by perpetrators 16
Too much trouble, no time 16
Because I was too emotionally upset to report it 13
Dealt with the problem myself/with help from family or friends 9
Other reason(s) 12
0 20 40 60
Question: Why was it not reported?
Base: Those respondents who did not report the most recent incident of discrimination; 43% of the sample, multiple answers,
54
In Kosovo, a significantly higher percentage of LGBTI people were pessimistic that action would be
taken or that change would occur pursuant to reporting an incident of discrimination (table 4.6.1).
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, LGBTI people said that they prefer to remain silent about incidents of
discrimination rather than reveal their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and/or being
intersex. In Croatia, LGBTI people did not think that incidents of discrimination were worth reporting
since discrimination happens all the time. LGBTI people in FYR Macedonia were not convinced that
the people to whom the reports were made understand the issue. In Slovenia, respondents were more
likely to deal with the incident themselves or with the help of family and friends.
Table 4.6.1. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination, by country (%)
PERCENTAGE OF YES ANSWERS
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
Nothing would happen or change 60 42 67 62 78 58 54 55
Did not want to reveal my sexual
orientation and/or gender identity 39 30 48 31 52 46 33 33
and/or being intersex
Fear of discrimination or ridicule 38 40 41 31 62 40 35 22
Not worth reporting it - it happens all the
34 29 27 44 30 36 29 44
time
Concerned that the incident would not
33 24 38 29 54 33 28 28
have been taken seriously
I did not think people would understand
30 22 26 29 36 43 25 30
what I was talking about
Too much trouble, no time 16 10 12 25 13 14 18 18
Dealt with the problem myself/with help
9 9 7 11 6 9 5 15
from family or friends
N 1000 172 233 214 100 130 36 115
Question: Why was it not reported?
Base: Those respondents who did not report the most recent incident of discrimination; 43% of the sample, multiple
answers, (N=1000); no missing or refused responses.
Among different LGBTI subgroups, intersex people were more likely to forego reporting due to fear
of intimidation by perpetrators but also because they were too emotionally upset (table 4.6.2).
Bisexual women were hindered from reporting incidents of discrimination because of not knowing
where to report, while bisexual men did not report because of a reluctance to reveal their sexual
orientation.
55
Table 4.6.2: Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination, by LGBTI group (%)
PERCENTAGE OF YES ANSWERS
Bisexual men
Transgender
Intersex**
Regional
Bisexual
average
Lesbian
women
Gay
*
Did not want to reveal my sexual
orientation and/or gender identity and/or 39 35 40 35 59 29 38
being intersex
Fear of discrimination or ridicule 38 31 44 29 49 39 49
Didn’t know how or where to report 17 14 17 24 12 4 16
Fear of intimidation by perpetrators 16 10 19 12 23 17 36
Because I was too emotionally upset to
13 14 15 10 8 7 26
report it
N 1000 211 354 239 106 44 48
Question: Why was it not reported?
Base: Those respondents who did not report the most recent incident of discrimination; 43% of the sample, multiple
answers, (N=1000); no missing or refused responses.
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who did not report the most recent
incident of discrimination (N=44).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex and who did not report the most recent incident of discrimination (N=48).
For almost half of the people who did report the incident, nothing happened (figure 4.6.3).
Figure 4.6.3. What Happened as a Result of Reporting the Most Recent Incident of Discrimination
(%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE
Nothing happened 47
A report was filed, but no disciplinary action at the end 13
Disciplinary action 12
A report was filed, but no disciplinary action yet 11
Don't know 17
0 20 40
Question: And what happened as a result of reporting the incident?
Base: Those respondents who reported the most recent incident of discrimination; 4% of the sample, (N=90); no missing or refused
responses.
56
4.7 Harassment
Three out of five LGBTI people (62 percent) had personally been harassed in the past five years.
LGBTI people in Kosovo reported the highest rate (73 percent) of harassment. The transgender
community fared the worst in this regard, with 90 percent of transgender people reporting
harassment in the past five years.
Figure 4.7.1. Experiences of Harassment by Someone or a Group for Any Reason in a Way that Was
Really Annoying, Offendensive, or Upsetting, by country and LGBTI group (%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE 62
Kosovo 73
Bosnia and Herzegovina 68
FYR Macedonia 63
Montenegro 61
Slovenia 60
Croatia 56
Albania 57
Transgender* 90
Intersex** 66
Gay 64
Bisexual female 62
Lesbian 59
Bisexual male 54
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: In the past 5 years, have you been: personally harassed by someone or a group for any reason in a way that really
annoyed, offended, or upset you? Either at work, home, on the street, on public transport, in a shop, in an office, or on the
internet?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89).
4.7.1 Profile of LGBTI victims of harassment
LGBTI people in the following four categories were most exposed to harassment (figure 4.7.1.1):
 People who are involved in LGBTI movements (70 percent) compared to those who are not
(60 percent)
 LGBTI people whose perceived gender differs from their own (75 percent), in particular, men
who are perceived as feminine (79 percent) compared to those whose perceived gender does
not differ from their own (60 percent)
 LGBTI people who are members of at least one other minority group (religious or ethnic, etc.)
(78 percent) compared to those who are not (58 percent)
 Younger people (aged 18–25) (67 percent) compared to older people
57
Figure 4.7.1.1. Characteristics of those Experiencing Harassment (%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE 62
Involved in the LGBTI movement 70
Not involved in the LGBTI movement 60
Member of at least one more minority group 78
Not a member of other minority groups 58
Perceived by others in discordance with sex assigned at birth 75
Perceived by others in accordance with sex assigned at birth 60
18-25 67
26-35 57
36-45 58
45+ 47
0 20 40 60
Question: In the past 5 years, have you been: personally harassed by someone or a group for any reason in a way that really
annoyed, offended, or upset you? Either at work, home, on the street, on public transport, in a shop, in an office, or on the
internet?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
4.7.2 Number of incidents of harassment in the past 12 months
Forty percent of all LGBTI respondents had been harassed in the past 12 months, and four out of
five (79 percent) of those were harassed more than once. On average, LGBTI people who had been
harassed in the past year were harassed at least four times (4.13 times).
There were no differences between countries on the average number of harassment incidents.
Among LGBTI groups, three things stand out:
 Lesbians, bisexual women, and intersex women were harassed the least, with fewer than four
incidents of harassment on average in the past year (intersex – 3.68 times, lesbians – 3.74,
and bisexual women – 3.95).
 Men perceived as feminine and those very open about their sexual orientation were harassed
frequently. Every second man perceived as feminine (57 percent) and three out of four LGBTI
people who are very open about their sexual orientation had been harassed more than three
times in the past 12 months.
 Transgender people experienced much higher rates of harassment, with almost six incidents
of harassment on average (5.59) in the past 12 months.
4.7.3 The most serious incident of harassment
Almost three-quarters of LGBTI people in the region (72 percent) indicated that the most serious
incident of harassment happened in person (figure 4.7.3.1). Nevertheless, the internet was the single
most common site for harassment (figure 4.7.3.2). Kosovo (43 percent) and Albania (39 percent) had
58
high numbers of cases of harassment over the internet. LGBTI people living outside of the capital or
other big cities (35 percent) and those who are not open about their sexual orientation (34 percent)
also experienced relatively high levels of harassment on the internet. In contrast, more than four-fifths
of males who are perceived as feminine (84 percent) experienced the most serious incident of
harassment in person (face to face), and only 16 percent experienced their most serious incident on
the internet.
Figure 4.7.3.1. The Most Serious Incident of Harassment Occuring in Person (Face-to-Face) or on
the Internet, by country, small city or rural location, outness, and perceived gender conformity
(%) It happened in-person (face-to-face) It happened on the internet
REGIONAL AVERAGE 72 28
Kosovo 57 43
Albania 61 39
Bosnia and Herzegovina 73 27
FYR Macedonia 73 27
Slovenia 78 22
Croatia 79 21
Montenegro 79 21
Small city or rural area 65 35
Not out about their sexual orientation 66 34
Male perceived as feminine 84 16
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: Thinking about the MOST SERIOUS incident of harassment, did it happen live (face-to-face) or it was on the internet?
Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=1388); no
missing or refused resposnes.
One in five LGBTI people (22 percent) experienced the most serious case of harassment on the
internet, followed by public place such as streets, square, car parking lot, etc. (18 percent) (figure
4.7.3.2). Transgender people were almost twice as likely to be harassed in these kinds of public places
(30 percent). On the other hand, bisexual women experienced their most serious case of harassment
in their home (12 percent).
59
Figure 4.7.3.2. Location of the Most Serious Cases of Harassment of LGBTI People (%)
On the internet 22
In a street, square, car parking lot, or other public… 18
At school, university 12
In a cafe, restaurant, pub, club 10
At my home 9
At the workplace 8
In public transport 3
In some other residential building, apartment 3
In a park, forest 2
At an LGBTI-specific venue or event 1
At medical practitioner/health care provider 1
Elsewhere indoors 2
Elsewhere outdoors 3
Other 5
0 20
Question: Where did it happen?
Base: Those who experienced incidet of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=1388); no
missing or refused responses.
4.7.4. Detailed view of the most serious cases of harassment
The most serious forms of harassment were verbal in nature. Seventy-six percent of respondents
had experienced name-calling, almost two-thirds (62 percent) experienced harassment in the form of
ridicule (making jokes), and more than half were verbally insulted and humiliated (55 percent) and
subjected to excessive or constant negative comments (52 percent) (table 4.7.4.1.).
Table 4.7.4.1. The Most Serious Form of Harassment, by perceived gender conformity (multiple answers, %)
Perceived by
perceived as
perceived as
accordance
assigned at
masculine
feminine
others in
Regional
with sex
average
Female
Male
birth
Name calling 76 73 78 76
Ridiculing (making jokes about you) 62 61 74 61
Excessive/constant negative comments 52 50 61 51
Bullying 29 29 54 27
Aggressive gestures (such as pointing) 29 30 47 28
Isolation from something or somebody; ignoring 17 19 27 16
Other verbal insult/abuse/humiliation 55 55 68 54
Other non-verbal insult, abuse, humiliation (such
23 23 43 22
as text or image)
Other 7 8 6 6
N 1388 94 92 1202
Question: Thinking about the MOST SERIOUS incident of harassment, what happened to you?
Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live
(N=1388).
60
4.7.4.2. Perpetrator(s) of the most serious cases of harassment experienced by LGBTI people
In a little more than half of the harassment cases (51 percent), there was more than one perpetrator.
Women were more likely to experience harassment by sole perpetrators.
Figure 4.7.4.2.1. The Most Serious Form of Harassment whether Perpetrators Were Alone or in a
Group, by LGBTI group (%)
Alone More than one perpetrator Don`t know
REGIONAL AVERAGE 39% 51% 10%
Bisexual female 49% 43% 8%
Lesbian 48% 44% 8%
Bisexual male 32% 54% 14%
Gay 31% 57% 12%
Intersex** 40% 54% 7%
Transgender* 29% 71%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: Was the perpetrator alone, or was there more than one perpetrator?
Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=1388).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who experienced incident of harassment in the past
5 years in the country where they currently live (N=48).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex and who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where
they currently live (N=57).
Six out of 10 LGBTI people in the region (60 percent) were harassed by male perpetrators or groups
of male perpetrators, while only 6 percent of the incidents were committed by female perpetrators
(and the rest by mixed groups).
For more than half of the LGBTI people (56 percent), their most serious incident of harassment was
perpetrated by someone they know (with no material differences between the countries or LGBTI
subgroups). Those who are open about their sexual orientation were frequently harassed by
somebody they did not know (62 percent), as were people involved in LGBTI movements (52 percent).
The most common perpetrators of harassment were people from school or college (23 percent) and
teenagers (20 percent). One out of eight (12 percent) respondents were harassed by family or
household members (table 4.7.4.2.1). These cases were more common among females (17 percent),
lesbians (17 percent), and bisexual women (18 percent). In contrast, gays were harassed less often by
family or household members (8 percent) but more frequently by people from outside their
immediate circle, such as members of extremist/racist groups (10 percent), neighbors (9 percent),
public officials (5 percent), or police officers.
61
Table 4.7.4.2.1. Identity of the Perpetrators in the Most Serious Case of Harassment, by LGBTI group (%)
Bisexual men
Transgender
Regional
Bisexual
Intersex
average
Lesbian
women
Gay
Someone else you didn’t know 35 37 37 30 29 43 39
Someone from school, college, or
23 15 23 27 27 24 16
university
Someone else you know 22 17 24 17 29 25 33
Teenager or group of teenagers 20 15 24 18 23 22 19
Family/household member 12 17 8 18 7 12 4
Colleague at workgroup 10 9 12 9 9 7 10
Member of an extremist/racist group 8 5 10 6 7 16 3
Neighbor 7 4 9 5 10 8 2
Don`t know 5 4 6 3 10 4 6
Other 5 3 6 4 6 6 6
Other public official (e.g., border guard,
3 1 5 1 3 2 --
civil servant) Police officer
A customer, client, or patient 3 3 3 2 2 2 3
Security officer/bouncer 2 0 2 2 5 -- --
Police officer 2 1 3 1 0 2 --
Medical practitioner/health care provider 1 1 2 0 2 -- 3
N 1388 258 499 349 178 48 57
Question: Do you think the perpetrator(s) was …?
Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live
(N=1388); no missing or refused responses.
4.7.5 Reporting harassment
Overall, only 13 percent of the respondents who were victims of harassment reported the incident,
and of that number, only 5 percent reported it to the police. This was similar across all surveyed
countries and LGBTI groups. Those who are more open about their sexual orientation or who are
involved in LGBTI movements were slightly more likely to report incidents of harassment to the police,
though they also suffered incidents of harassment more frequently.
About one in six LGBTI people who reported cases of harassment indicated that disciplinary action
against the perpetrator was taken (12 percent). On the other hand, almost half (47 percent) of those
who reported the incident stated that nothing happened, while an additional quarter (23 percent)
indicated that a report was filed but no disciplinary action was taken (figure 4.7.5.1).
62
Figure 4.7.5.1. Results of Reporting the Most Serious Case of Harassment (%)
Disciplinary action 12
A report was filed, but no disciplinary action yet 15
A report was filed, but no disciplinary action in the end 23
Nothing happened 47
Don`t know 4
0 20 40
Question: And what happened as a result of reporting the incident?
Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live and
reported it (N=73); no missing or refused resposnes.
The most common reason for not reporting cases of harassment to the police was the conviction
that the police would not take action (48 percent). A country by country analysis of the responses
reveals that:
 LGBTI people in Slovenia (47 percent) and Croatia (41 percent) believe that the incidents were
too minor to be reported (table 4.7.5.1).
 In Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, LGBTI people believe that the police would not do
anything (57 percent and 59 percent, respectively) or could not do anything (46 percent and
52 percent, respectively) about the incident.
 Responses in FYR Macedonia revealed that fear of homophobic and/or transphobic reactions
from the police (30 percent) prevented reports from being made. They also thought that
people would not understand the issue (28 percent). Given the reasons provided for not
reporting incidents of harassment, it is not surprising that (26 percent) of LGBTI people in FYR
Macedonia said that they deal with incidents of harassment themselves.
 Lastly, LGBTI people in Montenegro reported that they often do not report because they are
afraid of the perpetrators or reprisals (32 percent). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, one in four
LGBTI people did not report cases of harassment for the same reason.
Table 4.7.5.1. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Serious Case of Harassment to the Police, by country (multiple
answers, %)
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
Did not think they would do anything 43 33 57 38 59 39 33 30
Did not think they could do anything 34 23 46 32 52 27 34 23
Too minor/not serious enough/never
33 30 27 41 18 29 30 47
occurred to me
Shame, embarrassment, didn’t want anyone
21 19 21 20 22 24 30 20
to know
Fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic
20 24 17 18 21 30 18 12
reaction from the police
Dealt with it myself/involved a friend/family
18 11 17 18 13 26 18 23
matter
63
I did not think people would understand
18 8 17 19 25 28 18 14
what I was talking about
Fear of offender, fear of reprisal 17 5 25 17 15 18 32 11
Too emotionally upset to contact the police 12 15 11 13 15 14 15 7
Would not be believed 12 7 14 11 12 16 11 7
Didn’t want the offender arrested or to get
5 6 5 4 7 6 11 2
in trouble with the police
Thought it was my fault 3 2 3 4 7 3 3 4
Went someplace else for help 3 4 2 4 6 2 3 5
Somebody stopped me or discouraged me 3 1 2 4 6 4 7 0
Went directly to a magistrate or judge to
0.1 -- -- -- 1 -- -- --
report the incident
Other reason 8 9 5 9 6 9 6 11
N 1296 193 297 307 136 160 46 159
Question: Why did you not report it to the police?
Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live and did
not report it to the police (N=1296).
Among the different LGBTI subgroups, two patterns can be highlighted regarding reasons for not
reporting incidents of harassment (table 4.7.5.2):
 Gay (27 percent) and bisexual men (33 percent) did not report because of shame or
embarrassment. Additionally, one in three gays (29 percent) did not report harassment to the
police because they feared homophobic reactions, while one in four bisexual men (24 percent)
because of fear of the offenders.
 Intersex persons who deal with the matter themselves (29 percent) were well above the
regional average (18 percent). Bisexual women also tended to take the matter into their own
hands, with 24 percent reporting that they dealt with it personally or with the help of family
or friends.
Table 4.7.5.2. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Serious Case of Harassment to the Police, by LGBTI group
(multiple answers, %)
Bisexual men
Transgender
Regional
Bisexual
Intersex
average
Lesbian
women
Gay
Did not think they would do anything 43 37 46 39 50 43 46
Did not think they could do anything 34 31 35 33 37 32 42
Too minor/not serious enough/never occurred to me 33 31 30 37 38 12 29
Shame, embarrassment, didn’t want anyone to know 21 15 27 11 33 20 33
Fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic reaction from
20 13 29 9 25 19 24
the police
Dealt with it myself/involved a friend/family matter 18 16 15 24 13 12 29
I did not think people would understand what I was
18 13 20 17 22 16 15
talking about
Fear of offender, fear of reprisal 17 14 16 14 24 26 12
Too emotionally upset to contact the police 12 8 12 11 15 20 28
Would not be believed 12 10 13 10 13 9 17
64
Didn’t want the offender arrested or to get in trouble with
5 5 3 7 8 4 2
the police
Thought it was my fault 3 3 2 4 4 7 10
Went someplace else for help 3 3 4 4 2 11 --
Somebody stopped me or discouraged me 3 4 2 4 3 2 1
Went directly to a magistrate or judge to report the
0.1 -- -- -- 1 -- 1
incident
Other reason 8 9 6 8 10 14 3
N 1296 243 453 333 171 41 55
Question: Why did you not report it to the police?
Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live and did not
report it to the police (N=1296).
4.7.5.1 Reporting the incident to other organizations/institutions
Very few LGBTI people in the region reported incidents of harassment to an organization or
institution other than police. Aside from the police, reports of incidents of harassment were
commonly reported to LGBTI organizations (8 percent), as well as nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) that do not necessarily deal with LGBTI issues (figure 4.7.5.1.1).
Figure 4.7.5.1.1: Organizations and Institutions, other than Police, to which Incidents of
Harassment Were Reported (%)
LGBTI organization 8
Nongovernmental organization 3
State or national institution (such as an Equality Body) 1
Hospital or other medical service 1
General victim support organization 1
Rape crisis center 0
Internet service provider 1
Other organization 1
No, did not report 86
0 20 40 60 80
Question: Did you or anyone else report it to any of the following organizations/institutions?
Base: Those who experienced incident of harassment in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live
(N=1388); Don't know responses (N=40)
65
5. Violence Against LGBTI People
“My sister attacked me with a knife after finding out that I ha[ve] a boyfriend, and she
took my phone…. My father threatened [to] kill me...” (Gay man, Montenegro)
Violence is one of the most severe experiences a person can face in life and has serious impacts on
health, as well as economic and social outcomes. LGBTI people are often vulnerable to high levels of
violence and threats of violence and also live with greater fear of violence—all of which affect life
opportunities and choices. The survey asked respondents about their experiences of violence39 in the
past five years (Section 5.1), as well as whether they reported the violence to the authorities (Section
5.2).
CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS
One in three LGBTI people (32 percent) had been a victim of violence within the past five years.
This compares to 26 percent of the respondents to the FRA 2012 survey who reported that they
had been victims of violence. Transgender respondents (55 percent) and men who are perceived
as feminine (53 percent) were the most vulnerable groups.
The most common types of violence were threats of physical violence (40 percent) and actual
physical assaults (36 percent). The victim often knew the perpetrator, and in 20 percent of cases,
the perpetrator was a family or household member.
Less than one-fifth (17 percent) of the cases of violence were reported to the police. In the FRA
survey, 22 percent of respondents reported the most serious incidents of violence to the police,
while 17 percent reported the most recent incident. The most common reasons for not reporting
included a belief that the police would not or could not do anything about the incident, fear that
the perpetrator would retaliate, and fear of homophobic or transphobic reactions from the police.
Comparing across countries, violence was widespread in Bosnia and Herzegovina (41 percent
had experienced it) and Kosovo (40 percent), and least commonly reported in Slovenia (20
percent).
5.1 Experiences of violence
One in three LGBTI people (33 percent) across the region had been a victim of physical and/or sexual
violence or was threatened with violence within the past five years (figure 5.1.1). Compared to the
regional average, LGBTI people in Bosnia and Herzegovina (43 percent) and Kosovo (41 percent) had
been assaulted or threatened with violence more frequently. The transgender community stands out
as the most vulnerable group, as every second transgender individual (55 percent) had been a victim
of physical violence and/or sexual assault or threatened with violence in the past five years.
39Violence is defined as incidents in which a person is physically or sexually assaulted or threatened with violence at home or
elsewhere (street, on public transport, at your workplace, etc.).
66
Figure 5.1.1. Experiences of Being Physically/Sexually Assaulted or Threatened with Violence, by
country and LGBTI group (%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE 33
Bosnia and Herzegovina 43
Kosovo 41
Montenegro 38
FYR Macedonia 33
Albania 29
Croatia 29
Slovenia 22
Transgender* 55
Intersex** 33
Gay 38
Bisexual female 31
Lesbian 28
Bisexual male 29
0 20 40 60
Question: In the past 5 years, have you been: physically/sexually assaulted or threatened with violence at home or elsewhere
(street, on public transport, at your workplace, etc.) for any reason?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89).
5.1.1 Profile of LGBTI people who were victims of violence
Three groups of LGBTI people were frequent victims of violence (Figure 5.1.1.1):
 LGBTI people who are involved in LGBTI movements were more likely to experience violence
(43 percent) than those who are not (31 percent).
 LGBTI people who are members of at least one other minority group (e.g., religious or ethnic
minority) were victims of violence more often (49 percent) than those who are not (28
percent).
 LGBTI people who are perceived differently from the sex assigned to them at birth (43
percent), in particular, men who are perceived as feminine (53 percent), experienced violence
more often than those whose perceived sex is in accordance with the sex assigned to them at
birth (32 percent).
67
Figure 5.1.1.1. Characteristics of Those Who Experienced Violence (%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE 33
Involved in the LGBTI movement 43
Not involved in the LGBTI movement 31
Member of at least one more minority group 49
Not a member of other minority groups 28
Perceived by others in discordance with sex assigned at
birth 43
Perceived by others in accordance with sex assigned at birth 32
0 20 40
Question: In the past 5 years, have you been: physically/sexually assaulted or threatened with violence at home or
elsewhere (street, on public transport, at your workplace, etc.) for any reason?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
5.1.2 When did the violence or threat of violence happen
Among the LGBTI people who had experienced a physical/sexual assault or the threat of violence in
the past five years, around two-fifths (41 percent) experienced the most recent incident in the past
12 months, and 29 percent experienced the most serious case of violence or threat of violence in that
same period.
5.1.3 Number of cases of violence in the past 12 months
Among the LGBTI people who had experienced some form of violence in the past 12 months, six out
of 10 suffered violence on more than one occasion, 37 percent two or three times, and 23 percent
more than three times.
On average, LGBTI people in the region were victims of violence at least three times (2.97) in the
past 12 months. There were no differences between countries in the average number of assaults or
threats of violence, but among LGBTI groups, the transgender community stands out with twice the
number of cases (5.93 times) of violence compared to the regional average.
5.1.4 Detailed view of the most serious case of violence
5.1.4.1 Most serious violent incident LGBTI people experienced
For almost half (47 percent) of LGBTI people across the region, the most serious case of violence
was an assault, while for the other half it was a threat of violence (table 5.1.4.1.1). Among those
assaulted, more than one-third (36 percent) in the region were physically assaulted, while 11 percent
were sexually assaulted or both physically and sexually assaulted. Regarding threats of violence, 40
percent were threatened with physical violence, while every tenth individual (10 percent) was
threatened with sexual violence or both physical and sexual violence.
Physical assaults were the most serious cases of violence in Kosovo (50 percent of cases), higher
than the regional average. In Albania, assaults with a sexual component (sexual or physical and sexual
assault) were regarded as the most serious incidents of violence (17 percent).
68
The most serious cases of violence experienced by women had a sexual component. Among LGBTI
groups, 19 percent of bisexual women were sexually or physically and sexually assaulted, while 15
percent of lesbians were threatened with sexual or both physical and sexual violence.
Table 5.1.4.1.1. Type of Violence in the Most Serious Case of Violence, by country and LGBTI group (%)
Threat of physical
Threat of sexual
Physical assault
Sexual/Physical
sexual violence
violence/both
physical and
Don`t know
and sexual
violence
assault
Regional average 36 11 40 10 4
Albania 27 17 39 12 6
Bosnia and Herzegovina 37 8 39 15 1
Croatia 34 9 48 7 3
Kosovo 50 12 34 4
FYR Macedonia 37 11 37 7 9
Montenegro 46 1 36 13 5
Slovenia 31 17 36 12 5
Lesbian 42 8 29 15 6
Bisexual men 39 3 44 7 7
Gay 38 8 44 6 3
Bisexual women 26 19 40 13 2
Intersex** 40 17 29 9 5
Transgender* 38 15 41 6
Question: Thinking about the MOST SERIOUS physical/sexual assault or threat of violence, what happened to you?
Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they
currently live (N=733); Don’t know responses (N=28).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who experienced physical/sexual assault
or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=27); Don’t know responses (N=0).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5
years in the country where they currently live (N=29); Don’t know responses (N=2).
69
5.1.4.2 Perpetrator(s) of the most serious cases of violence LGBTI people experienced
Half of the most serious acts of violence were committed by groups (51 percent) (Figure 5.1.4.2.1).
Figure 5.1.4.2.1. Experiences of Assaults or Threats whether Perpetrators Were Alone or in a Group
, by LGBTI group (%)
Alone More than one perpetrator
REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 51
Bisexual female 69 31
Lesbian 68 32
Gay 36 64
Bisexual male 34 66
Transgender* 34 66
Intersex** 31 69
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: Was the perpetrator alone, or was there more than one perpetrator?
Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently
live (N=733); no missing or refused responses.
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat
of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=27).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in
the country where they currently live (N=29).
More than four-fifths of the most serious cases of violence in the region (81 percent) were
perpetrated by men, while only 6 percent were committed by women (with the rest by mixed
groups of men and women) (table 5.1.4.2.1). Lesbians reported a significantly higher percentage of
female perpetrators (14 percent), though they were very rare among gay men (2 percent).
70
Table 5.1.4.2.1. Genders of the Perpetrator(s), by country and LGBTI group (%)
Transgen
Female
Mixed
Don`t
know
Male
der
Regional average 36 11 40 10 4
Kosovo 89 3 6 2
Slovenia 85 3 9 3
Bosnia and Herzegovina 83 4 13 1
FYR Macedonia 82 6 9 1 2
Croatia 81 4 11 1 3
Montenegro 78 9 12 1
Albania 70 12 18
Gay 84 2 12 2
Lesbian 79 14 6 1
Bisexual men 78 4 18 1
Bisexual women 78 8 13 1 1
Intersex** 92 3 5
Trans* 80 1 18
Questions: What was the gender of the perpetrator? What were the genders of the perpetrators?
Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they
currently live (N=733).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who experienced physical/sexual assault
or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they currently live (N=27).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex and who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5
years in the country where they currently live (N=29).
In the most serious case of violence, the victim knew the perpetrator(s) half (54 percent) of the
time.40 This percentage was constant across countries and LGBTI groups except for Croatia, where a
significantly lower percentage of LGBTI people (37 percent) experienced violence from someone they
knew. LGBTI people who are more open about their sexual orientation were often victims of violence
perpetrated by someone they did not know. The most common perpetrators were teenagers (20
percent), a person from school or college (18 percent), and family or household members (17 percent)
(figure 5.1.4.2.2).
40Known people: family/household member; neighbor; colleague at work; someone from school, college, or university; a
customer, client, or patient; or someone else they knew. Unknown: member of an extremist/racist group, teenager or group of
teenagers, police officer, security officer/bouncer, medical practitioner/health care provider, other public official (e.g., border
guard, civil servant), or someone else they did not know.
71
Figure 5.1.4.2.2: Identity of the Perpetrators (%) - REGIONAL AVERAGE
Teenager or group of teenagers 20
Someone from school, college, or university 18
Family/household member 17
Member of an extremist/racist group 13
Colleague at work 7
Neighbor 7
Police officer 4
Security officer/bouncer 4
Other public official (civil servant etc.) 2
A customer, client, or patient 2
Medical practitioner/ health care provider 1
Someone else you know 20
Someone else you didn`t know 37
Other 5
0 10 20 30 40
Question: Do you think the perpetrator(s) was …?
Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where
they currently live (N=733); no refused or missing resposnes.
In Albania, perpetrators of violence were more likely to be members of the family or household.
Every fourth individual (25 percent) was a victim of violence committed by a family or household
member; among females, the figure was 22 percent, with lesbians at 25 percent and bisexual women
at 23 percent.
5.1.4.3 Where did the most serious cases of violence against LGBTI people occur?
Three out of ten LGBTI people in the region (30 percent) experienced the most serious case of
physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in a street, square, parking lot, or some other public
place (figure 5.1.4.3.1). The second most common place was the home (15 percent), a figure that was
higher for lesbians (25 percent) and bisexual women (22 percent). Every eighth LGBTI respondent in
the region (12 percent) suffered violence while out at a café, restaurant, pub, or a club, and those who
are more open about their sexual orientation were more likely to be victims of violence in those
places.
72
Figure 5.1.4.3.1. Location of the Most Serious Cases of Violence (%) - REGIONAL AVERAGE
In a street, square, car parking lot, or other public place 30
At my home 15
In a cafe, restaurant, pub, club 12
At school, university 8
At the workplace 6
In a park, forest 5
In some other residential building, apartment 4
At an LGBTI-specific venue or event (e.g., pride) 3
In a car 2
In public transport 2
Elsewhere indoors 2
Elsewhere outdoors 6
Other 6
0 20
Question: Where did it happen?
Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where
they currently live (N=733); no missing or refused responses.
5.2 Reporting violence to authorities
5.2.1 Reporting to the police
“A colleague of mine tried to rape me at work when he found out that I had an open
marriage. I reported him to the person in charge of sexual offenses, but it all ended with a
conversation…” (Bisexual female, Croatia)
Less than one-fifth of LGBTI people in the region (17 percent) who were victims of violence reported
the most serious incident to the police. LGBTI people who are more open about their sexual
orientation (31 percent of those somewhat open and 57 percent of those completely open) and those
involved in the LGBTI movement (24 percent) were more likely to report cases of violence to the
police.
The most common reason for not reporting assaults was the belief that the police would not (45
percent) or could not (38 percent) do anything (table 5.2.1.1). Another prominent reason was fear of
retaliation from the perpetrators (38 percent) and fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic reaction
from the police (31 percent).
More specifically with regard to reasons for not reporting incidents to the police:
 LGBTI people in Slovenia (31 percent) and Croatia (26 percent) often believed that the
incidents were too minor (not serious enough) to be reported.
 In Bosnia and Herzegovina (53 percent) and Kosovo (65 percent), people were afraid of
retaliation by the offender(s).
73
 In Kosovo, LGBTI people frequently did not report the incident because they believed that
police would not respond (54 percent) or because they believed it to have been their fault (14
percent).
 In FYR Macedonia, LGBTI people emphasized fear of homophobic and/or transphobic
reactions from the police (44 percent). They also did not think people would understand what
crime had occurred (37 percent). It is therefore not surprising that LGBTI people in FYR
Macedonia often dealt with the incidents of violence themselves (22 percent).
Table 5.2.1.1. Reasons for not Reporting the Most Serious Case of Violence to the Police, by country (multiple
answers, %)
FYR Macedonia
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
Did not think they would do anything 45 35 51 46 56 42 24 45
Did not think they could do anything 38 29 45 34 54 32 28 32
Fear of offender, fear of reprisal 38 14 53 31 65 27 36 22
Fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic reaction
31 42 29 28 25 44 26 17
from the police
Shame, embarrassment, didn’t want anyone to know 28 38 27 24 27 35 20 18
I did not think people would understand what I was
24 28 22 21 25 37 18 14
talking about
Too emotionally upset to contact the police 24 31 21 26 23 24 11 21
Would not be believed 18 23 18 17 11 24 13 13
Too minor/not serious enough/never occurred to me 17 16 12 26 5 16 17 31
Dealt with it myself/involved a friend/family matter 13 13 08 14 4 22 31 17
Didn’t want the offender arrested or to get in trouble
10 10 08 10 17 10 11 10
with the police
Thought it was my fault 7 14 04 06 02 11 01 11
Somebody stopped me or discouraged me 7 10 04 09 10 04 13 01
Went someplace else for help 4 04 05 02 04 05 07 03
N 603 97 170 123 63 77 24 49
Question: Why did you not report it to the police?
Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they
currently live and did not report it to the police, multiple answers (N=603); Don’t know responses (N=0).
The reasons why bisexual men and women did not report incidents of violence stand out from the
reasons of other LGBTI subgroups (table 5.2.1.2). A substantial number of bisexual men (61 percent)
believed that the police would not do anything; incidents were also not reported because of shame
and embarrassment (41 percent) or because they thought it was their fault (13 percent). Bisexual
women, on the other hand, frequently did not want the offender to get arrested or into trouble with
the police (17 percent). They also said that somebody sometimes stopped or discouraged them from
reporting (14 percent), probably because bisexual women often experienced violence at the hands of
family or household members.
74
Table 5.2.1.2. Reasons for Not Reporting the Most Serious Case of Violence to the Police, by LGBTI group (multiple
answers, %)
Bisexual men
Transgender
Regional
Bisexual
Intersex
average
Lesbian
women
Gay
Did not think they would do anything 45 44 48 35 61 45 38
Did not think they could do anything 38 38 39 36 44 36 30
Fear of offender, fear of reprisal 38 43 35 32 45 29 37
Fear of a homophobic and/or transphobic
31 22 38 18 42 53 30
reaction from the police
Shame, embarrassment, didn’t want anyone to
28 20 29 25 41 32 29
know
I did not think people would understand what I
24 29 25 20 20 47 22
was talking about
Too emotionally upset to contact the police 24 26 24 19 24 36 25
Would not be believed 18 14 16 18 27 25 14
Too minor/not serious enough/never occurred
17 13 19 18 16 12 18
to me
Dealt with it myself/involved a friend/family
13 10 12 15 15 14 22
matter
Didn’t want the offender arrested or to get in
10 15 5 17 11 4 4
trouble with the police
Thought it was my fault 7 8 3 11 13
Somebody stopped me or discouraged me 7 4 5 14 5 3
Went someplace else for help 4 3 4 4 4 9
Number of respondents 603 104 238 144 76 19 23
Question: Why did you not report it to the police?
Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where they
currently live and did not report it to the police, multiple answers (N=603); Don’t know responses (N=0).
Disciplinary action against the perpetrator was taken in less than one-fifth of the reported cases (16
percent) (figure 5.2.1.1).
Figure 5.2.1.1. Results of Reporting the Most Serious Case of Violence (%)
Disciplinary action 16
A report was filed, but no disciplinary action yet 14
A report was filed, but no disciplinary action in the end 27
Nothing happened 37
Don`t know 6
0 20 40
Question: And what happened as a result of reporting the incident?
Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where
they currently live and reported it to the police (N=123).
75
5.2.2 Reporting the incident to other organizations/institutions
LGBTI people also reported incidents of violence to LGBTI organizations (12 percent) and non-LGBTI
CSOs (5 percent) (figure 5.2.2.1). In addition, they reported incidents to state or national institutions
(such as an equality body) (3 percent), a hospital or other medical service (2 percent), and general
victim support organizations (2 percent). LGBTI victims of violence in Albania most frequently reported
incidents to LGBTI organizations.
Figure 5.2.2.1. Organizations and Institutions, Other than Police, to which the Most Serious
Incidents of Violence Were Reported (%)
LGBTI organization 12
Nongovernmental organization 5
State or national institution (such as an equality body) 3
Hospital or other medical service 2
General victim support organization 2
Other organization 1
Rape crisis center 0
No, did not report 82
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: Did you or anyone else report it to any of the following organizations/institutions?
Base: Those who experienced physical/sexual assault or threat of violence in the past 5 years in the country where
they currently live, multiple answers (N=733); Don't know resposnes (N=16).
Life of Transgender People
Survey findings point to the fact that there are marked differences in the lives and
experiences of people within the LGBTI population, and each subgroup faces unique
challenges and difficulties. Policies and legal frameworks are often not disaggregated and
do not take into account the diverse lived realities and varied experiences of each LGBTI
subgroup with regard to discrimination, exclusion, harassment, and violence. Although
this is true across the board, it is particularly the case for intersex and transgender people,
who often are the most invisible part of the LGBTI acronym but who nevertheless, as these
findings reveal, face more serious challenges than lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Given
that the number of transgender respondents was small and that they are generally often
missed in research, this text box will focus on the experiences and challenges faced by
transgender people as determined by the survey.
Openness about being transgender and avoidance behavior
o One-third of transgender people said that they hide their identity. Another third
rarely reveal their gender identity to people in their private and professional
lives.
76
o Two out of five transgender people reported that they always or often avoid
expressing their preferred gender through physical appearance and clothing for
fear of being assaulted, threatened, or harassed.
Rights awareness
o In general, transgender people were the most informed LGBTI group surveyed
about national anti-discrimination laws covering all three grounds of
discrimination (sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics). They
were especially well informed about laws on discrimination in the workplace
based on gender identity and sex characteristics.
The activism of transgender people
o Compared to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and intersex people, a large percentage of
transgender people said that they are engaged in one or more LGBTI movement
(47 percent). Furthermore, transgender people, along with lesbians, often attend
LGBTI events.
“…the state needs to take the rights of the LGBTI community seriously... Also,
the state should provide medical treatment for transgender persons and give
them the right to change gender and name identification in personal
documents.”
(Transgender person, Kosovo)
Discrimination and harassment
o After gays, transgender people were perceived to face the most discrimination
in the region; indeed, nine out of ten LGBTI people believed that discrimination
against transgender people is very or fairly common in the country in which they
live.
o The survey confirmed that transgender people are at the highest risk of
discrimination. Eighty percent had been discriminated against or harassed in the
past 12 months (compared to 49 percent of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and intersex
people).
o Every second transgender person had personally experienced
discrimination at a café, restaurant, bar, or nightclub in the past 12
months, which is twice as many as the overall LGBTI population.
o Compared to other LGBTI groups, transgender people are most open
about their identity at work and school but are also the most severely
discriminated group in these spheres of life.
o Transgender people (and intersex people) face the most difficulties in the
health care system and often avoid seeking medical treatment for fear
of discrimination.
o All transgender people who sought help did so from a psychologist or
psychiatrist. A significantly smaller number of transgender respondents
sought help from other specialists or care providers (six out of 31) or a
general medical practitioner (five out of 31). Most of the transgender
77
people who used medical services found that although they were willing
to help, they did not offer everything that was needed.
o Very few transgender people (5 percent) had bought hormones over the
internet.
o Eight transgender respondents had undergone medical treatment in the
process of gender confirmation: three in the country where they
currently live and five abroad. Of those who had not undergone such
treatment (53 respondents), three quarters have considered it, with all
but one weighing treatment abroad.
o Transgender people reported much higher rates of discrimination in everyday life
than other LGBTI groups. This discrimination took the form of experiencing less
courtesy and respect, being treated as if they were dishonest or unintelligent,
and/or receiving poorer service.
o The transgender community was also the most exposed to harassment. More
than four-fifths of respondents had been personally harassed during the past five
years (compared to less than two-thirds regionally). Additionally, transgender
people were subject to a greater number of specific incidents of harassment,
with almost six incidents of harassment on average in the past 12 months. They
were especially vulnerable to harassment in public places.
Violence
The transgender community stands out as the most vulnerable to violence. Every
second transgender person had been a victim of physical and/or sexual assault or
threatened with violence in the past five years (compared to one-third of all the other
LGBTI subgroups).
Improving the situation for transgender people
“I would like people like me to have free medical, psychological, and legal
support … because most of the transgender people must rely on sexual
working services because they don’t have any other means to survive… Not to
be discriminated while looking for job or going out in nightclubs… Of course,
media personalities should and could promote LGBT community’s rights…
better rights… better life…”
(Transgender person, FYR Macedonia)
Ninety percent of transgender respondents were of the view that the situation in their
country is not conducive to improving their quality of life. To make progress, transgender
people recommended the strengthening of national rights authorities; enhanced
transgender visibility in the media, sports, and the arts; vocal support from public figures;
and actions to make more places trans-friendly.
78
6. Improving the Situation for LGBTI People
“For any improvement regarding the LGBT community…, there should be intensive and
long-term campaigns for educating the public...” (Lesbian, FYR Macedonia)
It is important for LGBTI people to have a say in the development of measures to address the issues of
visibility, discrimination, harassment, and violence outlined in the survey. This exercise of agency is an
end in itself and also helps to ensure that the actions taken deal with the most pressing needs. As a
result, the survey asked respondents about measures that are currently being taken to improve their
lives (Section 6.1), as well as actions that are needed in the future (Section 6.2). Respondents were
asked to select the measures that they thought would best improve their lives from a set list of options.
CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS
Seventy-nine percent of respondents across the region said that positive measures to promote
the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are rare (a much higher number than the
58 percent in the FRA survey). The promotion of human rights was thought to be particularly rare
for transgender people (81 percent) (compared to 76 percent in the FRA survey) and intersex
people (82 percent).
The most popular measures respondents identified to improve their lives were:
o Lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents: vocal support from public figures in favor of efforts
to promote and respect their rights, and human rights training for public servants (both 89
percent).
o Transgender respondents: stronger national rights authorities; increased visibility in the
media, sports, and the arts; support from public figures; and more trans-friendly places (all
84 percent).
o Intersex respondents: public awareness raising (84 percent) and stronger national rights
authorities (82 percent).
6.1 Current measures to improve LGBTI lives
According to LGBTI people who responded to the survey, existing measures are inadequate and do
little to improve their lives. As many as 79 percent of respondents across the region were of the view
that positive measures to promote the human rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are rare, a
view that ranges from 58 percent in Slovenia to 94 percent in FYR Macedonia (figure 6.1.1).
79
Figure 6.1.1. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Assessments that the Situation is Fine Regarding None or
Some Number of the Proposals that Might Make their Living More Comfortable, by country (%)
Situation is not fine with any proposal Situation is fine with 1 or 2 proposals
Situation is fine with 3 or 4 more proposals Situation is fine with 5 or more proposals
Regional average 79 16 4
Slovenia 58 29 10
Croatia 62 31 6
Montenegro 86 12 1
Kosovo 89 10 2
Bosnia and… 90 9 2
Albania 91 6 3
Macedonia 94 41
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay or bisexual person in the country where
you live?
Note: 11 proposals were assessed.
Base:Only those who consider themselves as LGB; heteroseuxal or straight did not answer this secion (98.5% of the sample,
N=2295); Don't know resposnes range (N=42 to N=113)
For lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, the status quo with regard to the recognition of same-sex
relationships was considered to be problematic. Only 7 percent of 18–25-year-olds viewed the
current situation as “fine,” a figure that was over 20 percent for those older than 45 years (figure
6.1.2.).
Figure 6.1.2. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Assessments that the Situation Is Fine with Regard to the
Recognition of Same-Sex Relationship, by age group (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER "CURRENT SITUATION IS FINE"
18 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 45+
24
21
17 15
12 11
7 7
Recognition of a same-sex partnership Possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership
Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person in the country where you live?
Base: Only those who consider themselves as LGB; heterosexual or straight did not answer this section (98.5% of the sample,
N=2295); Don't know resposnes (N=46).
80
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who live in capital cities were more likely to view the current
situation as “fine” regarding recognition of same-sex relationships (figure 6.1.3).
Figure 6.1.3. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Assessments that the Situation Is Fine with Regard to the
Recognition of Same-Sex Relationship, by urban or rural location (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWER "CURRENT SITUATION IS FINE"
Capital city Big city other than capital Small city or rural area
13 12
8 8 8 7
Recognition of a same-sex partnership Possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership
Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person in the country where you live?
Base: Only those who consider themselves as LGB; heterosexual or straight did not answer this section (98.5% of the sample,
N=2295); Don't know resposnes (N=46).
Transgender and intersex people were very dissatisfied with existing measures to improve their
quality of life. As many as 90 percent were of the view that the situation is “not fine” regarding any
of the existing proposals to improve their quality of life (figure 6.1.4).41
Figure 6.1.4. Transgender and Intersex Assessments that the Situation is Fine Regarding None or
Some Number of the Proposals that Might Make their Living More Comfortable (%)
2
7 10
Situation is fine with 5 or more proposals
Situation is fine with 1 to 4 proposals
Situation is not fine with any proposal
91 90
Transgender Intersex
Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a transgender/intersex person in the country where you
live?
Note: Transgender people assessed 10 proposals, and intersex people 11 proposals.
Base:Transgender, 3% of the sample (N=55), refusals (N=2), Don't know resposnes range (N=1 to N=3); Intersex, 4% of the
sample (N=89); Don't know responses range (N=6 to N=12).
41 The small number of transgender and intersex respondents in the sample means that it was not possible to make robust
comparisons between the countries. As shown in Chapter 2, in total, 55 transgender respondents (53 unweighted) and 89 intersex
respondents (83 unweighted) participated in the survey. The number of transgender respondents across countries ranged from four
in Albania to 14 in Croatia, and the number of intersex respondents ranged from four in Slovenia to 25 in Albania.
81
6.2 What would improve the lives of LGBTI people?
“There should be training for authorities, law enforcement officers (police), and people
who work in health care. Also, there should be legislation for gender equality, and same-
sex marriages [should] be allowed …” (Gay man, FYR Macedonia)
The most popular measures to improve the lives of LGB people were vocal support from public
figures and rights training for public servants (89 percent of respondents supporting both). On the
other hand, fewer respondents (77 percent) believed that marriage equality (the ability of same-sex
partners to marry) and/or the possibility of registering partnerships would have a positive impact on
their lives. In the case of Croatia and Slovenia, this could be because same-sex marriages and legally
recognized partnerships already exist.
Figure 6.2.1. Perceptions of the Issues that Would Allow for More Comfortable Living as Lesbian,
Gay, And Bisexual People in their Country (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: NO, YES, CURRENT SITUATION IS FINE - REGION AVERAGE
Would allow more comfortable living Situation is fine
Would not allow more comfortable living Don't know
Public figures openly speaking in support of LGB people 89 2 8 2
Training of public servants on the rights of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual people 89 2 8 2
More LGB friendly places -- bars, social centers, etc. 87 4 62
National authorities who promote the rights of LGB people 87 2 9 3
Measures implemented at school to respect LGB people 87 2 9 3
More visibility of LGB people in media, sports, arts, etc. 86 2 9 3
Better acceptance of differences in sexual orientations by
religious leaders 82 1 13 4
Recognition of same-sex partnerships 82 11 62
The possibility of fostering/adopting children as a same-sex
couple 80 2 14 4
Anti-discrimination policies referring to sexual orientation in
the workplace 80 6 9 5
The possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership 77 10 10 3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person in the country where you live?
Base: Only those who consider themselves as LGB; heterosexual or straight did not answer this section (98.5% of the sample,
N=2295); no refusals or missing resposnes.
For transgender people, stronger national rights authorities, visibility in media, sports, and the arts,
support from public figures, and more trans-friendly places were all perceived as equally important
areas for action.
82
Figure 6.2.2. Perceptions of the Proposals that Would Allow More Comfortable Living as
Transgender Persons in their Country (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERS: YES, CURRENT SITUATION IS FINE, NO - REGION AVERAGE
Would allow more comfortable living Situation is fine Would not allow more comfortable living Don't know
National authorities who promote the rights of transgender people 84 4 6 7
More visibility of transgender people in media, sports, arts, etc. 84 2 8 6
Public figures speaking openly in support of transgender people 84 2 9 6
More transgender friendly places -- bars, social centers, etc. 84 6 6 5
Measures implemented at school to respect transgender people 83 1 12 4
Training of public servants on the rights of transgender people 82 4 7 7
Easier legal procedures for gender recognition in the preferred gender 81 1 14 5
Workplace anti-discrimination policies referring to gender identity 78 2 13 6
Better acceptance of differences in gender identities by religious
leaders 78 2 13 7
More options for medical treatment 78 2 15 5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a transgender person in the country where you live?
Base: Respondents who consider themselves as transgender persons, 3% of the sample (N=55); refusals (N=3).
For intersex people, public awareness raising, and strong national rights authorities were
considered important areas for action.
Figure 6.2.3. Perceptions of the Issues that Would Allow More Comfortable Living as Intersex
Persons in their Country (%)
Would allow more comfortable living Situation is fine Would not allow more comfortable living Don't know
Awareness raising of the general public about the existence of intersex
people as well as about their human rights 84 2 8 6
National authorities who promote the rights of intersex people 82 1 9 9
More intersex-friendly places -- bars, social centers, etc. 81 2 11 6
Training of the judiciary, immigration officers, law enforcement, health
care, education, and other officials and personnel are trained to… 81 1 11 7
Improving current anti-discrimination legislation to include intersex
people 80 9 11
Easier legal procedures for intersex recognition at birth (third sex
assigned at birth, except for female and male) 77 1 11 11
More visibility of intersex people in media, sports, arts, etc. 77 3 14 6
Public figures in politics, business, sports, etc. speaking openly in
support of intersex people 75 1 17 7
Measures implemented at school to respect intersex people 71 16 13
Better acceptance of intersex people by religious leaders 68 1 21 10
More options for medical treatment 57 2 27 14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Question: Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as an intersex person in the country where you live?
Base: Respondents who consider themselves as intersex persons, 4% of the sample (N=89).
83
More options for medical treatment were a relatively low priority for both transgender and intersex
people (78 percent and 57 percent, respectively).
Comparing the views of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people across countries on the specific proposals,
differences were most evident in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia (table
6.2.1). However, the small number of transgender and intersex respondents does not allow robust
comparisons between the seven countries and other demographic variables.42
Table 6.2.1. Perceptions of the Issues that Would Allow for More Comfortable Living as Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
People in Their Country, by country (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERES: YES
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
Public figures openly speaking in support of
89 77 90 94 90 91 86 90
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
Training of public servants on the rights of
89 80 91 92 89 92 88 85
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
More lesbian, gay and bisexual friendly places --
87 80 92 88 93 91 88 82
bars, social centers, etc.
National authorities who promote the rights of
87 79 91 91 89 90 88 80
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
Measures implemented at school to respect
87 75 89 93 89 90 88 80
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
More visibility of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
86 76 86 91 91 85 87 85
people in media, sports, arts, etc.
Better acceptance of differences in sexual
82 66 82 91 82 83 82 83
orientations by religious leaders
Recognition of same-sex partnerships 82 78 93 72 90 92 89 69
The possibility of fostering/adopting children as
80 69 83 88 82 76 85 77
a same-sex couple
Anti-discrimination policies referring to sexual
80 77 86 82 87 90 79 57
orientation at the workplace
The possibility of marrying and/or registering a
77 72 89 69 82 82 83 66
partnership
N 2295 386 481 583 194 279 84 288
Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person in the country where
you live?
Base: Only those who consider themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual; heterosexual or straight did not answer - 98.5% of
the sample (N=2295); Don’t know responses range (N=42 to N=113).
There was little confidence in Albania that the proposed actions could change or improve the lives
of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, as comparatively fewer respondents believed that the
42 See note 24.
84
measures could make their lives more comfortable. The most striking differences between Albania
and the regional average were with regard to open, vocal support for LGB people from public figures
(77 percent in Albania thought it would help compared to 89 percent in the region), positive measures
in schools (75 percent compared to 87 percent), the visibility of LGB people (76 percent compared to
86 percent), better acceptance by religious leaders (66 percent compared to 82 percent), and the
possibility of adopting children (69 percent compared to 80 percent) (table 6.2.2).
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the recognition of same-sex partnerships and the possibility of marrying
and/or registering a partnership were viewed as likely to have a positive impact by more respondents
than in other countries (93 percent and 89 percent, respectively).
In Croatia, 91 percent of respondents felt that better acceptance of differences in sexual
orientations by religious leaders would help them be more comfortable, and 88 percent that the
possibility of fostering/adopting children as a same-sex couple would have a positive impact on their
lives.
Relative to the regional average, fewer respondents in Slovenia felt that positive actions would
improve their lives on three issues: recognition of same-sex partnerships, anti-discrimination policies
in the workplace related to sexual orientation, and the possibility of marrying and/or registering a
partnership (69, 57, and 66 percent, respectively).43
Among the different subgroups, the views of bisexual men varied quite significantly across most of
the proposals. Fewer bisexual men believed that the proposals would have much of a positive effect
on their lives (table 6.2.2). In addition, compared to gay and bisexual men, more lesbian and bisexual
women said that the possibility of fostering or adopting children would have a positive impact on their
lives (table 6.2.2).
Table 6.2.2. Perceptions of the Issues that Would Allow for More Comfortable Living as Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
People in Their Country, by LGBTI group (%)
PERCENTAGES OF ANSWERES: YES
Bisexual men
Regional
Bisexual
average
Lesbian
women
Gay
Public figures in politics, business, sports, etc. openly speaking in
89 91 90 90 80
support of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
Training of public servants (e.g., police, teachers) on the rights of
89 92 89 90 81
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
More lesbian, gay, and bisexual friendly places—bars, social centers,
87 91 87 88 82
etc.
National authorities who promote the rights of lesbian, gay, and
87 91 89 88 76
bisexual people
Measures implemented at school to respect lesbian, gay, and bisexual
87 91 88 89 75
people
More visibility of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in media, sports,
86 91 87 88 75
the arts, etc.
Better acceptance of differences in sexual orientations by religious
82 82 83 82 77
leaders
Recognition of same-sex partnerships 82 85 79 85 77
The possibility of fostering/adopting children as a same-sex couple 80 88 79 86 65
43 Same-sex marriage is legal in Slovenia, as are workplace protections.
85
Anti-discrimination policies referring to sexual orientation at the
80 86 80 81 71
workplace
The possibility of marrying and/or registering a partnership 77 83 75 81 65
N 2295 469 854 602 371
Question: What would allow you to be more comfortable living as a lesbian, gay or bisexual person in the country where
you live?
Base: Only those who consider themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual; heterosexual or straight did not answer - 98.5% of
the sample (N=2295); Don’t know responses range (N=42 to N=113).
Regarding demographic variables, the most notable differences were found in relation to sex
assigned at birth and involvement in the LGBTI movement:
 Sex assigned at birth: more women than men felt that all the proposals, except for better
acceptance by religious leaders, would allow them to live more comfortably with their sexual
orientation. The greatest differences were with regard to possibly fostering/adopting children
(87 percent of women and 74 percent of men) and the possibility of marrying or registering a
partnership (82 percent and 72 percent, respectively).
 Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people involved in LGBTI movements felt that all the proposals
would help, with the largest differences being the ability to foster/adopt children (87 percent
compared to 79 percent of people not in movements), visibility of LGB people in the media,
sports, the arts, etc. (93 percent compared to 85 percent), school measures (93 percent
compared to 85 percent), national rights authorities (94 percent compared to 86 percent) and
training of public servants (95 percent compared to 87 percent).
86
7. Conclusion and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusion
This report shines a light on the lives of LGBTI people in the Western Balkans, Croatia, and Slovenia.
Specifically, the data collected through the survey contribute to the small but growing global evidence
base on LGBTI lives and provide empirical evidence that can be used to improve their lives in this
region and beyond.
The collective experiences of LGBTI people in the countries surveyed paint a distressing picture of
the harmful effects of discrimination, harassment, exclusion, and violence. The findings confirm that
generally, most LGBTI people hide their identities for fear of discrimination or worse and have
legitimate concerns about their safety, especially in public spaces, but also in their own homes. The
survey indicates that the majority of LGBTI people are not involved in LGBTI movements and have
limited knowledge of their rights and how to exercise them. Many are on the receiving end of offensive
jokes, insults, abusive language, and expressions of hatred. Discrimination in the workplace and in the
health care and education systems remains common, and incidents of exclusion and harassment are
widespread.
Despite the frequent discrimination, harassment, and violence that LGBTI people face, specific
incidents are seldom reported. In the few instances in which reports are made, there is usually
inaction or inadequate action to address the situation. Unsurprisingly, many LGBTI people are of the
view that very few beneficial measures are being taken to improve their lives and that more needs to
be done. For example, the public and LGBTI people themselves need to become more aware of LGBTI
rights, and national human rights authorities should be strengthened to effectively address and
protect those rights. Many respondents felt that the increased visibility of LGBTI people through, for
example, more vocal support from public figures would help promote respect for their rights.
Promoting LGBTI inclusion is important in and of itself, but also because exclusion is costly. There is
increasing evidence that links exclusion with detrimental health, education and employment
outcomes for LGBT people, aggregating to broader impacts on the overall economy.44 These effects
can be mitigated with increased public acceptance for LGBTI people.45 Social inclusion of LGBTI people
is therefore not only the right thing, but also because it is the smart thing to do.
7.2 Recommendations and next steps
The Yogyakarta Principles46 are a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and
gender identity. They provide a concise and internationally recognized set of standards states should
comply with to ensure that the human rights of LGBTI people are fully protected. Governments are
encouraged to implement reforms that are in line with the Yogyakarta Principles to address the
violence, discrimination, harassment, and stigma that LGBTI people face.
Globally, our understanding of the lived experiences of LGBTI people is limited, even in OECD
countries. The primary purpose of this report was, therefore, to help fill this LGBTI data gap in
Southeastern Europe, rather than explore specific policy or operational interventions. Nonetheless,
the research findings reveal areas in need of urgent attention. The survey results illustrate that LGBTI
people face discrimination, exclusion, and violence despite protective laws in most of the surveyed
countries. As a result, rather than focusing on expanding legal protections, the recommendations of
44 For example, Banks C. (2003). The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia in Canada .
Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskathewan; see also Becker, G. (1971).
The Economics of Discrimination, (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; see also Badgett, M.V.L. (2014) The Economic
Cost of Stigma and the Exclusion of LGBT People: A Case Study of India. Washington D.C.: World Bank
45 For example, Banks C. (2003). The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia in Canada .
Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskathewan; see also Becker, G. (1971).
The Economics of Discrimination, (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46 The Yogyakarta Principles plus 10 (2017)
87
this report focus on bringing the law to life by: expanding the evidence base, raising awareness and
capacity, and closing implementation gaps.
Expanding the evidence base
Researchers, advocates, and policymakers should delve further into the available data to inform
interventions in each country. This report highlights key regional messages, but the data set is rich
and could be used for further country-specific and subgroup analyses that go into further detail. Annex
4 provides a longitudinal analysis of Slovenia and Croatia, as those two countries were part of the 2012
FRA survey.
The LGBTI data gap remains large, and further research and data collection are necessary to better
understand the lived experience of LGBTI people and the challenges they face. National statistical
agencies should begin to collect LGBTI-disaggregated data to provide the up-to-date evidence needed
to build more inclusive policies and programs at the country level, thereby aligning themselves with
statistical agencies in advanced countries.
Raising awareness and capacity
Sensitization and capacity building programs for public servants should be expanded and
strengthened. A lack of knowledge and awareness of LGBTI discrimination among public servants
often results in the exclusion of LGBTI people from key social programs. To sensitize public servants,
governments should conduct regular capacity building and sensitization campaigns across all relevant
government branches, including for teachers, social workers, health care providers, and justice sector
officials. Such training programs should be designed in close consultation with local LGBTI
organizations to ensure sensitivity, relevance, and sustainability.
More needs to be done to increase the rights awareness of LGBTI people. The survey findings suggest
that there is a profound lack of awareness of rights among LGBTI people across the region.
Governments, donors, and CSOs should consider raising awareness of these rights among LGBTI
people, especially in rural areas. Enhanced, positive visibility of LGBTI people in the media, sports, and
the arts could help to increase understanding and change attitudes towards LGBTI people, as
experienced, for example, in the USA, Australia, and some EU countries.
The capacity of LGBTI organizations across the region should be strengthened. In the last decade, a
growing number of LGBTI organizations were established across the region and they have been key in
achieving political and legal changes to improve the lives of LGBTI people in each country. Many of
these organizations are concentrated in the capitals or other large cities and their capacity to
effectively provide services to LGBTI communities is often limited. Governments, development
partners and other donors are encouraged to further build the capacity of existing LGBTI organizations
and actively support the creation of services for rural communities. A part of the capacity building will
be to engage organizations in the collection of data on LGBTI people (especially those residing in rural
locations and areas without great access to the internet).
Closing implementation gaps
Governments should use the survey findings to identify implementation gaps related to the EU
accession process, especially for Chapter 23: Judiciary and Fundamental Rights and Chapter 24:
Justice, Freedom, and Security. The five Western Balkan countries surveyed are either candidates or
potential candidates for EU membership. In the most recent Communication on EU Enlargement
Policy, the European Commission (EC) states, “…fundamental rights are largely enshrined in the
legislation in the Western Balkans but serious efforts are needed to ensure they are fully implemented
in practice.” The EC continues by highlighting that, “while progress has been made in the Western
Balkans on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, additional efforts are
needed to end discrimination, threats, and violence.”47 As part of the EU accession process, countries
47 European Commission. (2018). 2018 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy. Brussels.
88
develop action plans to combat discrimination and uphold human rights, including for LGBTI people,
as outlined in the Fundamental Rights Charter. This survey provides new data points on
implementation gaps and can inform recommendations provided by the European Commission. The
data can be used as a baseline for the action plans. Over time, countries should conduct follow-up
surveys to track results on reducing discrimination against, and the exclusion of, LGBTI people and
progress under Chapters 23 and 24.
Governments should improve the criminal justice response to violence against LGBTI people. Safe
reporting structures are needed to encourage LGBTI people to report violence, harassment, and
discrimination without fear of exposure, retaliation, or further discrimination. Similarly, LGBTI people
need to feel assured that their cases will be taken seriously and handled professionally and that
actions will be taken to bring perpetrators to account. Ministries of Justice and the Interior in the
seven countries examined are therefore encouraged to identify ways to improve the treatment of
LGBTI people in the justice system. Rights awareness and capacity building are needed for justice
personnel, including police, prosecutors, judges, and staff. The European Commission’s 2018 Annual
Enlargement packages for each of the Western Balkan countries provide detailed recommendations
for governments on the judiciary and fundamental rights, as well as justice, freedom, and security.
Safe spaces should be created. The widespread experiences of violence and other security concerns,
both in public and private areas, indicate that safe spaces should be created where LGBTI people can
receive specialized services and support. Civil society groups already offer a patchwork of services,
and governments and donors should consider how to best support them to strengthen delivery.
Governments should also strengthen victim support services to ensure that LGBTI victims of crime
receive the services they need. Further, general government public health campaigns against
(domestic) violence should contain LGBTI components.
89
Annex 1. Method and Weighting
Data collection method. Data collection was made possible by programming the questionnaire in all
local languages using IPSOS’s own data entry program. All the logical checks in the questionnaire were
implemented. The data collection program guaranteed full protection of respondents’ privacy and
confidentiality, facilitating their participation in the survey.
The CAWI (Computer Assisted Web Interviewing) method of data collection was used. CAWI makes
it possible to conduct interviews through a website or via e-mail to collect information on the
characteristics and attitudes of respondents. The questionnaire appears in the browser as a webpage.
Responses are sent directly to a server, so the results of the research and data collection can be
continuously monitored.
The survey was available in all the main web browsers, including Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox,
Chrome, Safari, and Opera, and was adjusted for use on different types of devices—desktop
computers, personal computers/laptops, tablets, and smartphones.
The landing page of the survey’s website is shown below. It included the most relevant information
about the survey and who was conducting it, as well as guarantees of the privacy of the respondents.
Weighting of the sample
Representative surveys of LGBTI populations are difficult to conduct due to the small percentage of
adults who identify as LGBTI.48 Weighting can adjust sample characteristics to population targets to
correct over- and/or under-sampled groups. The challenge for populations not measured in
administrative surveys (e.g., a census) or large-N studies49 is that these targets are unknown.
To identify appropriate targets, results were collected from about 300 studies of LGBTI populations
around the world. Online searches (Pubmed, JSTOR, Web of Science, Google, and Google Scholar)
were used to find sources for the table. English key words included: LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans,
transed, transism, transsexual, transsexualism, transgender women, transgender men, third gender,
non-binary, MSM (men who have sex with men), WSW (women who have sex with women), same-
sex attraction, homosexual, HIV, AIDS, population, prevalence, size, estimation, risk factor, health, and
MARP. Key words were combined and appended with a country or region name. Key words in non-
English languages were also used, such as: waria, mak nyah, fakaleiti, hijra, kathoey, and bakla, as well
as the translation of English terms, such as transgenero, HSH, LSL, МСМ, VIH, SIDA, and ゲイ, 同志,
同性戀. Other research was obtained by reviewing the references within the reports that were found.
Additionally, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and AIDSinfo databases were
examined for HIV reports. Government reports, as well as those published by LGBT and women’s
organizations in various countries, were also searched. Publications in both English and other
languages were included. The information collected was then broken down into separate columns in
the master Excel spreadsheet. Citations were stored in a separate Word document.
About 300 sources of data were identified, including 154 administrative, country-level estimates
submitted by national governments to UNAIDS, as well as 150 studies published either as
organizational and agency reports or as articles in peer-reviewed journals. Included in all these sources
were approximately 520 estimates for particular sexual and gender minority groups according to
identity, behavior, sex, and gender at the country level. Some of these studies were of sexual minority
populations that were outside the scope of the current targets (e.g., MSM). After subdividing the 28
valid and verified studies to populations relevant to the current weighting targets (e.g., sexual and
48 For example, for the United States, see A. R. Flores and others, “How Many Adults Identify as Transgender in the United
States?” (Los Angeles: the Williams Institute, 2016).
49 Studies that look for patterns in a large number of cases.
90
gender minorities), a weighting process that considered sex as assigned at birth and sexual orientation
was the most appropriate.50
A hierarchical, Bayesian meta-analysis was performed to derive targets, taking into account the
diversity of countries and populations included. Each country sampled in the current study was
reweighted for these targets, which had the advantage of ensuring that those assigned female sex at
birth were weighted appropriately in the resultant survey data. Some of the outreach methods have
the potential of recruiting more people who were assigned male sex at birth, which could alter the
results toward the narratives of people assigned male sex at birth. The weights account for this
potential skewing of results by ensuring a narrative common to people assigned male sex or female
sex at birth. A summary of the population targets is provided below (table A1.1). A final adjustment
to the weights was applied such that each country sample was weighted proportionately to the size
of its adult population. This way, regional estimates were adjusted for larger and smaller countries.
Table A1.1. Summary of the Population Weights (%)
Assigned male sex at birth Assigned female sex at birth
Heterosexual or straight 92.8 94.6
Gay or lesbian 5.0 2.8
Bisexual 2.2 2.6
Total 100 100
The unweighted and weighted samples are as follows:
Table A1.2. Sample Realization – Unweighted Data (number of respondents)
Country/LGBTI Lesbian Gay Bisexual Bisexual
Transgender Intersex Total
group women men women men
Albania 29 72 40 41 2 13 197
Bosnia and
106 114 102 35 5 12 374
Herzegovina
Croatia 146 245 126 42 13 8 580
Kosovo 18 44 20 25 8 12 127
FYR Macedonia 64 174 101 55 10 22 426
Montenegro 42 44 56 15 6 12 175
Slovenia 85 222 76 21 9 4 417
Total 490 915 521 234 53 83 2296
Table A1.3. Sample Realization – Weighted Data (number of respondents)
Country/LGBTI Lesbian Gay Bisexual Bisexual
Transgender Intersex Total51
group women men women men
Albania 77 133 96 58 4 25 394
Bosnia and
97 174 122 70 7 17 487
Herzegovina
Croatia 118 211 147 94 14 7 590
Kosovo 36 66 46 24 13 15 200
FYR Macedonia 51 97 71 41 7 15 282
Montenegro 17 27 20 12 3 6 85
Slovenia 61 103 72 42 8 4 289
Total 457 811 574 341 56 89 2329
50 Given the inconsistencies in reporting among these numerous studies, factors such as age or educational attainment were
unable to be included.
51 It should be noted that the total weighted numbers and sums of individual cells are not in line due to the weighting process,
meaning that the numbers in all individual cells, including total weighted numbers, are not whole but decimal numbers.
91
Safety issues: One of the crucial tasks in this study was to ensure anonymity and the privacy of survey
participants. This was done by a Linux data server with firewalls installed, which used HTTPS and SSL
protocols. Although it was explained to the respondents that at no point would it be possible to
identify any of them personally, it is likely that some LGBTI people did not take part due to safety
concerns. This was possibly more common among those who are not open about their sexual
orientation and/or gender identity and/or being intersex.
Availability of the LGBTI survey link
to LGBTI and also non-LGBTI
people: Although the survey was
meant for LGBTI people aged 18 or
older and included selection
questions, theoretically, it was
possible for anyone to fill it out.
There was no way to prevent “fake”
entries (i.e., to prevent non-LGBTI
people from completing the
survey). Nevertheless, all
questionnaires underwent strict
logic control, and all suspicious
questionnaires, for whatever
reason, were excluded from further
analysis.
Intersex respondents: To be as
inclusive as possible, the project
team decided to widen the scope of
the project by including intersex
people in the survey. The inclusion
of intersex people was very
important since data regarding their
lives are very scarce. There are only a few organizations in the region that have intersex issues in their
scope, and there are no organizations dealing exclusively with their rights. The scarcity of information
on this subject made it difficult to predict the number of intersex people that could be expected to
respond to the call to participate in the survey.
Respondents were considered intersex if they answered affirmatively to the question “ Some people
are assigned male or female sex at birth but are born with sexual anatomy, reproductive organs,
and/or chromosome patterns that do not fit the typical definition of male or female. This physical
condition is known as intersex. Are you intersex?” Based on this question, 89 intersex people (83
people before weighting the data) took part in the survey.
LGBTI organizations that were involved in the project raised some concerns about the number of
people claiming to be intersex, given that very few intersex people in the whole region are involved
in LGBTI movements.
Unfortunately, there were no means of verifying whether these people are indeed intersex or not.
The commitment to protect the privacy and anonymity of the respondents meant that no personal
information was collected. In adherence to the policy of inclusiveness, it was decided that all
respondents who stated that they are intersex would remain in the survey.
92
Annex 2. List of CSO Survey Partner Organizations
o Queer Montenegro
o Juventas
o Spectra
o CURE Foundation
o Tuzla Open Centre
o Subversive Front
o LGBTI Support Centre
o Coalition Margins
o LGBT United Tetovo
o Women’s Alliance
o PINK Embassy
o Alliance LGBT
o Open Mind Spectrum
o PRO LGBT
o Streha
o Center for Equality and Liberty
o Center for Social Group Development
o TransAid
o Zagreb Pride
o TransAkcija Institute
o Škuc LL
o Legebitra
93
Annex 3: Demographics
Sex: Respondents who were assigned male sex at birth were slightly more likely to respond to the
survey (53 percent compared to 47 percent for females), a trend that was similar across all seven
countries (figure A3.1).
Slightly more transgender respondents were assigned female sex at birth (52 percent). On the other
hand, among intersex respondents, a larger percentage were assigned male sex at birth (64 percent).52
Figure A3.1. Birth Sex Breakdown, by LGBTI group (%)
Assigned Male to Birth Assigned Female at Birth
REGIONAL AVERAGE 53 47
Gay 100
Intersex 64 36
Trans 48 52
Bisexual women and men 37 63
Lesbian 100
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: What sex were you assigned at birth?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses.
Age: The average age of the respondents was 27.6 years. More than four out of five respondents were
between 18 and 35 years old (85 percent), while every second respondent was 25 years old or younger
(49 percent). Only 3 percent of respondents were over 45.
Respondents from Slovenia and Croatia tended to be older compared to respondents from Kosovo,
Albania, and FYR Macedonia.
52 For many transgender and intersex persons, “sex assigned at birth” is not a relevant category, as they do not identify with it.
94
Figure A3.2. Age Breakdown, by country (%)
18-25 26-35 36-45 45+
REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 36 12 3
Kosovo 61 26 12 1
Albania 59 34 6 1
FYR Macedonia 57 32 8 3
Bosnia and Herzegovina 49 40 9 2
Montenegro 41 46 11 2
Slovenia 41 35 16 8
Croatia 39 36 20 5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: How old are you?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
On average, women were younger (average age of 26 years) compared to men (average age of 29).
Bisexual women tended to be younger, with more than 90 percent under the age of 36. Bisexual men,
on the other hand, were among the oldest respondents in the sample—a quarter were older than 35.
Figure A3.3. Age Breakdown, by LGBTI group (%)
18-25 26-35 36-45 45+
REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 36 12 3
Bisexual women 64 30 4 2
Lesbian 44 40 14 1
Bisexual men 44 34 16 7
Gay 42 38 16 4
Intersex** 54 33 11 2
Transgender* 54 31 12 4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: How old are you?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89).
Education: Almost all respondents had at least secondary school education, while only 2 percent had
primary school education or less. About half of the respondents had college, university, or other higher
education.
Openness: Overall, people were more likely to be open with friends and work colleagues and least
likely to be open with neighbors, work customers, and clients.
95
Table A3.1 Openness about Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Sex Characteristics to Different Groups of
People (%)
Open about sexual Open about Open about sex
orientation* gender identity** characteristics***
Parents/legal guardians
None of them 60 38 -
One of them 17 16 -
Both/all of them 23 46 -
N (N missing) 2182 (2) 46 (9) -
Friends
None 12 13 36
A few 39 26 44
Most 27 23 14
All 22 38 6
N (N missing or “does not apply”) 2169 (13) 44 (11) 74 (15)
Work colleagues/schoolmates
None 45 25 66
A few 35 38 28
Most 12 20 2
All 9 17 4
N (N missing or “does not apply”) 2132 (52) 43 (12) 74 (15)
Siblings
None 57 53 75
A few 8 7 17
Most 5 6 5
All 30 34 4
N (N missing or “does not apply”) 1997 (185) 38 (18) 74 (15)
Other family members
None 65 41 76
A few 21 21 18
Most 7 12 3
All 7 26 3
N (N missing or “does not apply”) 2139 (44) 42 (13) 75 (14)
Medical staff/health care providers
None 76 48 79
A few 17 15 11
Most 4 18 4
All 4 19 6
N (N missing or “does not apply”) 2079 (103) 46 (9) 74 (15)
96
Immediate superior/head of department
None 80 61 80
A few 7 12 11
Most 4 14 1
All 9 14 8
N (N missing or “does not apply”) 1935 (247) 39 (12) 73 (16)
Neighbors
None 81 57 81
A few 13 16 14
Most 3 13 3
All 3 14 2
N 2130 (53) 44 (11) 75 (14)
Customers, clients, etc. at work
None 85 58 85
A few 9 21 10
Most 2 10 3
All 4 11 2
N 1933 (249) 41 (14) 73 (16)
Question: To how many people among the following groups are you open to about your sexual orientation/gender
identity/sex characteristics? Answer “Does not apply to me” excluded for each group.
*Base: All respondents who consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual; 98.5% of the sample (N=2293).
**Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
***Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89).
Figure A3.4. Educational Level, by country (%)
Primary education or less Secondary education Higher education
REGIONAL AVERAGE 2 45 54
Albania 3 30 67
Slovenia 3 44 54
Croatia 1 47 52
FYR Macedonia 3 46 52
Montenegro 1 49 50
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 50 49
Kosovo 1 52 48
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); responses of other with a write-in (N=50).
97
There were no significant educational differences between lesbians, gays, bisexual men, and
bisexual women. On the other hand, transgender and intersex respondents were less likely to have
higher education.
Figure A3.5. Educational Level, by LGBTI group (%)
Primary education or less Secondary education Higher education
REGIONAL AVERAGE 2 45 54
Gay 1 42 57
Bisexual female 2 44 55
Bisexual male 1 45 54
Lesbian 2 47 52
Transgender* 6 52 42
Intersex** 4 57 39
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); responses of other with a write-in (N=50).
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); responses of other with a
write-in (N=0).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); resposnes of other with a write-in (N=0).
Employment status: Every second respondent indicated that he or she is in paid work (49 percent),
including those who are on temporary leave from work. Given that the sample was quite young, not
surprisingly, every third respondent was a student (32 percent), while every fifth respondent was
unemployed or otherwise not working (including those in unpaid or voluntary work and those who
are retired or are otherwise not working).
Figure A3.6. Economic Activity Status, by country (%)
In paid work Student Unemployed or otherwise not working
REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 32 19
Albania 55 28 17
Croatia 55 32 13
Montenegro 52 27 21
Slovenia 50 38 12
Kosovo 45 29 26
Bosnia and Herzegovina 45 32 23
FYR Macedonia 40 36 24
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: Which of the following best describes your status?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses.
98
Intersex respondents were more likely to be unemployed and gay respondents in paid work.
Bisexual women respondents were more likely to be students than to be in paid work, reflecting the
fact that they were among the youngest respondents (figure A3.7).
Women were often students, while men were often in paid work, again reflecting the age difference
between the genders.
Figure A3.7. Economic Activity Status, by country (%)
In paid work Student Unemployed or otherwise not working
REGIONAL AVERAGE 49 32 19
Gay 55 26 19
Bisexual men 53 29 19
Lesbian 53 29 19
Bisexual women 38 47 15
Intersex** 48 23 29
Transgender* 43 32 25
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: Which of the following best describes your status?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses.
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89).
Income: Most respondents reported monthly net household incomes that ranged from €200 to €1,000
(20 percent reported income of €200–400; 20 percent income of €400–600, and 21 percent income
of €600–1,000) (figure A3.8). Slightly less than one in ten respondents reported extremely low or high
monthly income: 9 percent reported income of less than €200 per month, while 8 percent reported
income above €2,000.
99
Figure A3.8. Household Monthly Income, by country (%)
REGIONAL Bosnia and FYR
AVERAGE Slovenia Croatia Herzegovina Montenegro Kosovo Albania Macedonia
8 7 2 6 6 2
3
More than 2000 5 9 1
EUR 4 3 8
8 24 15 9 6 15
7
1500-2000 EUR
14 18
21 20 16
1000-1500 EUR 21 21 21
21 19
600-1000 EUR 25
26 28
20 20
28
400-600 EUR 20
30
200-400 EUR
17 31 24
17 27 27
20
10
Less than 200
10 20
EUR 9 6 9 9 10 13
3 3
Question: Could you please indicate what your household’s net combined monthly income is?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); refused or missing responses (N=4).
Differences between LGBTI groups were far less pronounced, except for intersex respondents who
stood out as a group as the highest percentage of people with low net monthly incomes (less than
€400) (figure A3.9). Certain other differences were also noticeable, for example, that gays and
bisexual men had slightly higher monthly income, and lesbians and bisexual women had slightly lower
income. These differences probably had more to do with age and gender than with the respondents’
sexual orientation.
Figure A3.9. Household Monthly Income, by LGBTI groups (%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE
Bisexual female
Transgender*
Bisexual male
Intersex**
Lesbian
Gay
More than 2000 8 5 9 7 9 11 4
7 4
EUR 8 7 4
11 9 8
1500-2000 EUR 13 13 18
14 6
16 16
1000-1500 EUR 12
24 18 16
21
600-1000 EUR 22 23 15
22
400-600 EUR 20 25 29
16 21 29
200-400 EUR
20 26
20 19 10
Less than 200 EUR 19 25
9 6 7 8 12
Question: Could you please indicate what your household’s net combined monthly income is?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); refused or missing resposnes (N=4).
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55); no refused or missing
responses.
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89); no refused or missing responses.
100
Residence: The majority of respondents reported that they live in urban areas—every second
respondent in a capital city (53 percent), while an additional fifth in other big cities (20 percent) (figure
A3.10). Only 6 percent of respondents stated that they live in rural areas (villages).
Figure A3.10. Place of Residence, by country (%)
Capital city The suburbs or outskirts of the capital city
Big city, other than capital (including suburbs or outskirts) Small city
Rural area
REGIONAL AVERAGE 53 5 22 15 6
Albania 73 6 12 7 2
FYR Macedonia 62 3 23 10 2
Montenegro 57 5 20 15 3
Croatia 53 5 22 15 5
Slovenia 50 7 15 14 14
Kosovo 46 6 17 25 6
Bosnia and Herzegovina 34 4 34 21 6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: Where do you currently live?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses.
With regard to LGBTI subgroups, differences were far less pronounced but still visible. In particular,
67 percent of transgender respondents stated that they live in the capital city compared to only 39
percent of intersex respondents (figure A3.11).
Figure A3.11. Place of Residence, by LGBTI group (%)
Capital city The suburbs or outskirts of the capital city
Big city, other than capital (including suburbs or outskirts) Small city
Rural area
REGIONAL AVERAGE 53 5 22 15 6
Lesbian 55 5 19 18 2
Gay 55 4 20 14 6
Bisexual women 52 5 24 12 6
Bisexual men 45 5 26 16 8
Transgender* 67 5 15 9 5
Intersex** 39 13 19 23 6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: Where do you currently live?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses.
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89).
Relationship status: Regionally, a slim majority of respondents were single (figure A3.12). One-third
of the respondents were in a relationship and not living with their partner (31 percent), while 16
percent lived together with their partner or a spouse.
101
Figure A3.12. Relationship Status, by country (%)
Have no relationship/do not have a partner Involved in a relationship without living together
Living together with a partner/spouse Other
REGIONAL AVERAGE 51 31 16 3
Kosovo 58 30 11 1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 54 33 10 3
FYR Macedonia 54 33 8 4
Montenegro 50 39 9 2
Albania 49 39 10 2
Croatia 48 28 23 1
Slovenia 47 20 29 4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: What best describes your current situation in the country where you live …?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses.
Gay men were often single (60 percent), as were bisexual men and intersex respondents (both 56
percent) (figure A3.13). Lesbian respondents and bisexual women, on the other hand, were likely to
be in a relationship, as were transgender respondents (39 percent of lesbians and 37 percent of
bisexual women and transgender respondents), while lesbian respondents often lived with their
partner or spouse (22 percent).
Figure A3.13. Relationship Status, by LGBTI group (%)
Have no relationship/do not have a partner Involved in a relationship without living together
REGIONAL AVERAGE 51 31 16 3
Gay 60 24 13 2
Bisexual men 56 26 15 3
Bisexual women 46 37 14 3
Lesbian 37 39 22 2
Intersex** 56 28 13 3
Transgender* 45 37 16 2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: What best describes your current situation in the country where you live …?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no refused or missing responses.
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89)
Four out of five respondents who were in a relationship had same-sex partners (79 percent), while
about one-fifth had a partner of the opposite sex (21 percent) (figure A3.14). Almost all respondents
who identified as lesbian or gay had a partner of the same sex (99 percent of lesbians and 98 percent
of gays). On the other hand, every second bisexual man or woman had a same-sex partner (54 percent
of bisexual men and 53 percent of bisexual women).
102
Figure A3.14. Same-Sex versus Different-Sex Partnerships, by LGBTI group (%)
Has a same-sex partner Has a partner of a different sex
REGIONAL AVERAGE 79 21
Lesbian 99 1
Gay 98 2
Bisexual men 54 46
Bisexual women 53 47
Transgender* 74 26
Intersex** 61 39
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: What best describes your current situation in the country where you live …?
Base: Respondents who are in a relationship; 47% of total sample (N=1085); responses of "Other, please specify" (N=19).
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who are in a relationship (N=29); responses of
"Other, please specify (N=3).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex and who are in a relationship (N=37); responses of "Other, please specify" (N=1).
The proportion of same-sex versus different-sex couples did not vary significantly between countries
(figure A3.15).
Figure A3.15. Same-Sex versus DIfferent-Sex Partnerships, by country (%)
Has a same-sex partner Has a partner of a different sex
REGIONAL AVERAGE 79 21
Montenegro 86 14
Croatia 83 17
Albania 78 22
Slovenia 78 22
Bosnia and Herzegovina 76 24
Kosovo 75 25
FYR Macedonia 73 27
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: What best describes your current situation in the country where you live …?
Base: Respondents who are in relationship; 47% of the sample (N=1085); responses of "Other, please specify" (N=19).
Marital status/civil status: Ninety-one percent of respondents indicated that their civil status was
single, with only 6 percent married or living in a registered partnership (figure A3.16). Among them,
48 percent were in a legally recognized relationship with a same-sex partner and 52 percent with a
partner of a different sex. In Slovenia, a somewhat higher percentage of married people were
registered (14 percent).
103
Figure A3.16. Marital Status, by country (%)
Single Married/in a registered partnership Divorced/Separated or Widowed
REGIONAL AVERAGE 91 6 3
Bosnia and… 95 32
FYR Macedonia 95 23
Kosovo 92 4 3
Albania 91 5 4
Croatia 90 7 3
Montenegro 90 2 8
Slovenia 83 14 3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: In terms of your marital status in the country where you live, are you…?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
Slovenia and Croatia had the highest number of respondents who were married or in a registered
partnership with a same-sex partner (39 percent and 40 percent, respectively). This is
understandable, given that same-sex couples can marry or register a partnership in these countries
(table A3.1).
Table A3.2. Number of Respondents in Same-Sex versus Different-Sex Marriages/Registered Partnerships, by
country
Women in Women in Men in Men in
marriage/registered marriage/registered marriage/registered marriage/registered
N
partnership with a partnership with a partnership with a partnership with a
woman man woman man
Albania 0 0 13 4 17
Bosnia and
1 10 4 0 15
Herzegovina
Croatia 13 5 7 15 40
Kosovo 0 5 3 1 9
FYR
0 1 4 1 6
Macedonia
Montenegro 0 0 1 0 1
Slovenia 15 5 7 12 39
REGION 29 26 39 33 127
Questions: What sex were you assigned at birth? In terms of your marital status in the country where you live, are you? Is
your current partner: Woman/Man?
Base: Those respondents who reported that they are in a marriage/registered partnership with woman or man (N=127);
responses of “Other, please specify” (N=1).
Bisexual men were more often married or in a registered partnership (10 percent), as were
transgender people (figure A3.17). Among the other groups, no significant differences were visible.
104
Figure A3.17. Marital Status, by LGBTI group (%)
Single Married/in a registered partnership Divorced/Separated or Widowed
REGIONAL AVERAGE 91 6 3
Gay 94 42
Lesbian 93 5 2
Bisexual women 91 5 3
Bisexual men 84 10 7
Intersex** 91 6 3
Trans* 83 10 7
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Question: In terms of your marital status in the country where you live, are you…?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89)
Living with children: One-fifth of respondents stated that one or more children were living in their
household (20 percent) (figure A3.18). Respondents from Kosovo and Albania often lived with children
in the same household (35 percent in Kosovo and 29 percent in Albania). On the other hand,
respondents from Croatia and Slovenia were less likely to be living with children in their household
(14 percent in Croatia and 13 percent in Slovenia).
Figure A3.18. Living with Children, by LGBTI group (%) - PERCENTAGE OF ANSWERS: YES
REGIONAL AVERAGE 20
Kosovo 35
Albania 29
FYR Macedonia 24
Bosnia and Herzegovina 16
Montenegro 16
Croatia 14
Slovenia 13
0 20 40
Question: Do any children (under the age of 18) live in your household?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
Transgender and bisexual women respondents were more likely to be living with one or more
children in their household (34 percent of transgender respondents and 28 percent of bisexual
women) than was the case for lesbians and gays (15 percent of lesbians and 14 percent of gays) (figure
A3.19).
105
Figure A3.19. Living with Children, by LGBTI group (%) - PERCENTAGE OF ANSWERS: YES
REGIONAL AVERAGE 20
Bisexual female 28
Bisexual male 24
Lesbian 15
Gay 14
Transgender* 34
Intersex** 27
0 20 40
Question: Do any children (under the age of 18) live in your household?
Base: Total sample (N=2329); no missing or refused responses.
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89).
When looking at those with children living in their household, 18 percent of respondents were
parents or legal guardians of the children (figure A3.20). There were no significant differences
between the countries, but bisexual men stood out, with over a quarter of them stating that they were
a parent or legal guardian of a child or children living in their household (28 percent). In contrast, gay
and transgender respondents were far less likely to be parents or legal guardians (5 percent).
Figure A3.20. Is the Respondent a Parent or Legal Guardian of a Child (or Children), by LGBTI group
(%)
REGIONAL AVERAGE 18
Bisexual male 28
Bisexual female 22
Lesbian 19
Gay 5
Intersex** 23
Transgender* 2
0 20
Question: Are you a parent or legal guardian of a child (or children)?
Base: Those who have children living in their household (20% of the sample, N=465).
* Base : All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender and who have children living in their household
(N=19).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex and who have children living in their household (N=24).
Minority status: Slightly less than two-thirds of respondents considered themselves to be part of a
sexual minority (62 percent) and an additional 15 percent part of a gender minority (table A3.2).
Furthermore, one out of 10 respondents felt that he or she was part of a religious or an ethnic minority
group. A fifth of respondents did not consider themselves to be part of any of the listed minorities (18
percent).
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia stand out with the highest percentages of respondents who
stated that they were part of a sexual minority (81 percent in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 78 percent
106
in Croatia), while Slovenia had the highest percentage of respondents who belonged to a gender
minority (61 percent). On the other hand, Albania registered the highest percentage of respondents
who do not consider themselves to be part of any of the listed minorities (30 percent).
Table A3.3. Perception of Belonging to a Minority, by country (%)
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Macedonia
Bosnia and
Regional
Slovenia
average
Albania
Kosovo
Croatia
FYR
A sexual minority 62 44 81 78 57 64 76 17
A gender minority 15 6 9 9 9 10 9 61
A religious minority 12 2 21 16 19 11 10 3
An ethnic minority 9 4 11 7 21 10 8 8
Other minority group 6 4 9 6 5 8 5 7
A minority in terms of disability 2 3 1 1 4 3 3 1
None of the above 18 30 10 14 23 20 12 23
Don`t know 8 19 4 4 12 9 9 6
Question: In the country where you live, do you consider yourself to be part of any of the following?
Base: Total sample (N=2329).
A high percentage of lesbian and gay respondents considered themselves to be part of a sexual
minority (70 percent of lesbians and 69 percent of gays), while transgender respondents
predominantly considered themselves to be part of a gender minority (73 percent) (table A3.3). In
contrast, bisexual men and intersex respondents did not consider themselves to be part of any of the
listed minorities (31 percent of bisexual men and 28 percent of intersex respondents).
Table A3.4. Perception of Belonging to a Minority, by LGBTI group (%)
Bisexual men
Transgender
Intersex**
Regional
Bisexual
average
Lesbian
women
lesbian
Gay
*
A sexual minority 62 70 69 59 46 50 40
A gender minority 15 15 12 16 11 73 20
A religious minority 12 12 13 14 9 12 9
An ethnic minority 9 9 11 7 8 10 8
Other minority group 6 5 6 7 5 21 6
A minority in terms of disability 2 1 2 1 1 15 4
None of the above 18 13 15 19 31 6 28
Don`t know 8 8 6 9 12 8 16
Question: In the country where you live, do you consider yourself to be part of any of the following?
Base: Total sample (N=2329).
* Base: All respondents who describe their gender identity as transgender; 2% of the sample (N=55).
**Base: All respondents who are intersex; 4% of the sample (N=89).
107
Annex 4: Croatia and Slovenia: A Longitudinal Analysis
Croatia and Slovenia were the only countries covered in both the current (2017) survey and the
2012 FRA survey. This Annex presents a summary comparison of the demographics between the
two surveys, of the results on key questions.
There were fewer transgender people surveyed in the 2017 survey than in the 2012 FRA survey
(Table A.4.1). Overall, gay and bisexual men comprised about 60% of the sample in 2012 and about
50% in 2017. The 2017 study had a greater share of lesbian and bisexual women than in the 2012
study. Unlike the 2012 FRA, the 2017 study included intersex people. Through the rest of this
comparison, intersex individuals in 2017 are removed, to increase comparability. The margins of error
for the sample in each country are the following: ±3 for Croatia, 2012; ±4 for Slovenia, 2012; ±4 for
Croatia, 2017; and ±6 for Slovenia, 2017.53
Table A.4.1. LGBTI Respondents by Country (number of respondents)
Statistic Croatia 2012 Croatia 2017 Slovenia 2012 Slovenia 2017
Lesbian women N 235 118 160 61
Gay men N 592 211 345 103
Bisexual women N 157 147 64 72
Bisexual men N 105 94 38 42
Transgender N 108 14 29 8
Intersex N -- 7 -- 4
Total N 1197 590 636 289
Lesbian women % 20 20 25 21
Gay men % 49 36 54 36
Bisexual women % 13 25 10 25
Bisexual men % 9 16 6 15
Transgender % 9 2 12 3
Intersex % -- 1 -- 1
Total % 100 100 100 100
LGBTI people in Croatia and Slovenia experienced violence at slightly lower rates in 2017 compared
to 2012. In 2012, one in three (35 percent) LGBT people in Croatia and one-quarter (26 percent) in
Slovenia had been a victim of physical and/or sexual violence or was threatened with violence within
the past five years. In 2017, three out of ten (29 percent) LGBT people in Croatia and one in five (22
percent) in Slovenia had been a victim of physical and/or sexual violence or was threatened with
violence within the past five years. These differences, however, are unlikely statistically
distinguishable from one another.54 In 2012, the perpetrators of violence against LGBT people were
unknown to the survivors in four out of ten cases (39 percent Croatia; 41 percent Slovenia). This had
53 Margin of error is calculated based upon asymptotic assumptions, which are unlikely met because both the 2012 and 2017
studies rely on purposive sampling. The margin of the error is reported to understand the magnitude of differences between the
two years.
54 Statistics for the 2012 FRA were retrieved from the FRA Survey Data Explorer, which do not permit statistical hypothesis tests.
108
not markedly changed in 2017 when for 46 percent of survivors in Croatia and 42 percent Slovenia,
the perpetrators were unknown.
The rates of reporting violence to police have increased in Croatia but decreased in Slovenia. In
2012, only 18 percent in Croatia, and 27 percent in Slovenia, of violence cases were reported to the
police. In 2017, this increased slightly to 23 percent in Croatia but decreased markedly to 14 percent
in Slovenia. In both years, the most common reasons for not reporting violence were a belief that the
police would not or could not do anything, fear of reprisal from the perpetrator(s), and fear of violence
from the police themselves.
Discrimination is generally as prevalent in Croatia and Slovenia in 2017 as it was in 2012. In 2012, 94
percent of respondents in Croatia and 85 percent of respondents in Slovenia reported that
discrimination based on sexual orientation is common. In 2017, 93 percent of respondents in Croatia
and 79 percent of respondents in Slovenia reported that discrimination based on sexual orientation is
common. In 2012, 36 percent of transgender respondents in Croatia and 19 percent in Slovenia had
personally experienced discrimination in the past year. In 2017 the figures are much higher, with 54
percent of transgender respondents55 in Croatia and 94 percent of transgender respondents in
Slovenia56 personally experiencing discrimination in the past year. These differences, however, are
unlikely to be statistically distinguishable from one another due to the relatively small sample sizes.
Reporting discrimination is slightly higher in 2017 than in 2012. In the 2012 study, 7 percent of LGBT
respondents in Croatia and 3 percent in Slovenia reported their most recent case of discrimination. In
2017, 9 percent of LGBT respondents in Croatia and 6 percent in Slovenia reported their most recent
case of discrimination. The most common reason for not reporting the most recent instance of
discrimination was skepticism that anything would happen or change, which was similar for both years
(Table A.4.2).
Table A.4.2. Reasons for Not Reporting Most Recent Incident of Discrimination (multiple responses, %)
Croatia Croatia Slovenia Slovenia
2012 2017* 2012 2017**
Nothing would happen or change 65 62 59 55
Did not want to reveal my sexual orientation
51 31 39 33
and/or gender identity and/or being intersex
Fear of discrimination or ridicule -- 32 -- 22
Not worth reporting it - it happens all the time 38 44 41 44
Concerned that the incident would not have
42 29 32 28
been taken seriously
I did not think people would understand what I
-- 29 -- 30
was talking about
Didn't know how or where to report 27 16 18 20
Fear of intimidation by perpetrators 20 12 12 10
Too much trouble, no time 25 25 24 18
Because I was too emotionally upset to report it 15 15 11 13
55 Base: Transgender respondents (N=13).
56 Base: Transgender respondents (N=9).
109
Dealt with the problem myself/with help from
14 11 22 15
family or friends
Other reason(s) 14 15 9 14
Total 100 100 100 100
Question: Why was it not reported?
*Base all respondents who reported experiencing discrimination (N =215).
**Base all respondents who reported experiencing discrimination: (N=161).
Levels of discrimination have improved for Croatia in education and the workplace and increased
slightly in health care and worsened for Slovenia in all three areas. In 2012, discrimination was more
widespread in the education system (Croatia, 24 percent; Slovenia, 13 percent) and the workplace
(Croatia, 24 percent; Slovenia, 14 percent) than in the health care system (Croatia, 10 percent;
Slovenia, 8 percent). In 2017, Croatia reported reductions in discrimination in education (14 percent)
and the workplace (18 percent) with increases for Slovenia in both areas (16 percent and 15 percent).
Both countries experienced slightly higher levels of discrimination in the health care system between
the two studies (Croatia, 11 percent; Slovenia, 12 percent).
Jokes against LGBT people remain common, but with a decrease in Slovenia; while the occurrence
offensive language by politicians has improved. In 2012, 91 percent of LGBT people in Croatia and 79
percent in Slovenia reported that it was common for people to make jokes about LGBT people in
everyday life. In 2017, this was the same for Croatia (91 percent) and somewhat lower in Slovenia (71
percent).57 In 2012, 77 percent of LGBT people in Croatia and 73 percent in Slovenia reported that
politicians commonly use offensive language to describe LGBT people. In 2017, this had reduced to 65
percent in Croatia and 50 percent in Slovenia.
Visibility of LGBT people remains low and has decreased in some areas. In both Croatia and Slovenia,
only 1 percent reported public figures being open about being LGBT in 2012. From this low base, it
improved to 7 percent in Croatia and 5 percent in Slovenia in 2017. The willingness of LGBT people to
reveal their identity to their neighbors decreased between 2012 and 2017. In 2012, 65 percent of LGBT
people in Croatia and 49 percent in Slovenia were not out to any of their neighbors. This increased to
76 percent in Croatia and 54 percent in 2017.
The home remains a site of violence for LGBT people. According to the 2012 FRA, the third most
common place where violence against LGBT people occurs is in the home (Croatia, 10 percent;
Slovenia, 8 percent), with higher incidences of violence against lesbians occurring in the home
(Croatia, 25 percent; Slovenia, 24 percent). In 2017, the home remained a commonplace of violence
against LGBT people (Croatia, 11 percent; Slovenia, 8 percent), with incidences of violence against
lesbians remaining high in Croatia (24 percent) but reducing in Slovenia (15 percent).
This summary comparison between the 2012 FRA and 2017 surveys for Croatia and Slovenia suggest
that little has changed on key indicators of LGBT people in these countries. Some indicators suggest
that the environment in these countries has gotten worse, but most suggest very little difference. The
similarities between the results of the two surveys do suggest that the Croatian and Slovenia sample
are sufficiently similar to produce similar results. Overall, this adds additional robustness to the 2017
study.
57 Note that the 2012 FRA relied on a slightly different question wording than the 2017 survey.
110
Annex 5: Questionnaire
The questionnaire is available here: http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3212
111
113